Underlore

The typewriter's a gun. Show'em some steel.

Things every kid should know.

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Wanted_500.jpg

“The foundation of every state is the education of its youth.” – Diogenes

1. No one decides to be mean.
2. Being older doesn’t mean being smarter.
3. Respect does not mean obedience.
4. If someone can tell you what to do with something it’s theirs.
5. Responsibility is usually code for control.
6. Those who have more force others to have less.
7. Angry people are afraid of something.
8. If someone forces you instead of explains, you’re smarter than they are.
9. People want you to compete because they are afraid of what you can do when you cooperate.
10. Everyone gets something out of what they are doing.
11. No one chooses how smart they are.
12. No one chooses how they feel.
13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.
14. Smart people can be wrong.
15. The message is independent of the messenger.
16. The majority can be wrong.
17. Reality is not a democracy.
18. Academic skill does not equal intelligence.
19. There is a tool or trick to offset every weakness.
20. Those that tell you loudest to work hard often aren’t working at all.
21. You don’t have to be part of something to understand something.
22. You could be the first.
23. Hurting people doesn’t make you strong or right.
24. Removing the need for something is the best way to fight it.
25. Everything you own charges you rent.
26. Only you know your gender.
27. Laziness is not a bad thing.
28. There are always more options.
29. How you feel and think depend partly on your health.
30. Your body is your brain’s pet.
31. You have a limited amount of time, spend it wisely sell it rarely.
32. People lie because the truth is a threat to them.
33. No one can tell you what love means.
34. Revenge is an attempt to control the past.
35. Context changes meaning, and you can always add context.
36. Outliving something is better than killing it.
37. They care enough to tell you they don’t care.
38. If they tell you they’re laughing, chances are, they aren’t.
39. The truth doesn’t always look true.
40. Knowing you could be wrong does not mean you are.
41. You don’t have to be an expert to be right.
42. No one owns a fact.
43. You don’t have to earn the right to live.
44. Wealth is about luck and ethics.
45. People who want power shouldn’t get it.
46. Genius is always outnumbered.
47. Strangers are more complicated than you think.
48. Everyone has a reason.
49. Some people are immune to the truth, sometimes it’s you.
50. There will always be things you don’t know about yourself.
51. Not all things are scalable.
52. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity.
53. Maturity does not equal conformity.
54. The really good ideas aren’t always popular.
55. Writing is nearly immortal and often ignored.
56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
57. You do not have to be what your parents intended.
58. Truly nice people are rarely popular, they tend to hide.
59. You’re a completely different person after a while.
60. Poor people exist mainly because rich people sequester wealth.
61. It’s not holding a grudge if they continuously offend you.
62. You will outlive all the adults, that means the future is your business.
63. If they can’t tell you what’s in it for them, it’s a trap.
64. Evolution doesn’t always improve things.
65. Common sense isn’t rare, you’re just misunderstanding the actual agenda of the parties involved.
##. There are always more things to put on this list.

  • Anonymous

    @observer

    Setting aside the possibility that a person is genuinely unaware that their actions are being interpreted as mean, and also setting aside situations where the actor is forced to choose between two or more mean acts we come up against what is essentially the crux of the nature of evil, which in turn is an argument of free will.

    I ask you, if you grant that emotional states are outside of control do you also grant that severity of an emotional state is equally free from constraint? I’m going to assume your answer is yes, feel free to correct me. That said, do you believe that emotional reactions at certain severities become overwhelming, again I’m going to assume yes.

    Your contention that people chose to act mean begs the question of what do you mean by mean and what do you mean by choose. If a person chooses to be cruel for no rational reason, could that be evidence of their character? If their character demands that they act cruelly was their character their choice? Or is character an aggregate state formed by the culmination of choices they’ve previously made, in short do choices give rise to character or does character influence choice?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how you look at it there is no genuine control, merely layers of influence. Your will can tip the scales of action but ultimately since emotion is the source of all motivation, and rationality is simply the calculations of the the rational mind as how to best act on those motivations, there is no hard and fast control.

    This is why axioms of ethics are so important. As with chaos, there is an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions here, which is why this list is aimed at children and why the state is so oppressive towards them.

    Cruelty is by and large the logical outcome of setting some other value statement above statements pertaining to the most good for the most people is the best thing. If you somehow lose sight of the importance of the suffering of others, if you find a way to justify your pleasure costing twice as much pain, then you are wrong in my view.

    But that being said, it’s still not a choice for these people. At no point did anyone wake up and say “I’m going to do the most harm I can today” even terrorists or serial killers with destructive goals are working towards some internal notion of best. It’s just that their definition of best has been corrupted in some way. Mental illness, chemical imbalance, or flawed ideology.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop them if we can, I’m just saying we need to abandon notions of punishment as some kind of righteous duty, and focus on the goal which is obviously the prevention of mean behavior if at all possible. Preferably by removing the motivation to be mean, to understand what meanness is, its antecedents, its mechanisms, and balance our desire to crush meanness with the rights of even the most mean individual.

    I hope this helped hehe.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    @observer

    Setting aside the possibility that a person is genuinely unaware that their actions are being interpreted as mean, and also setting aside situations where the actor is forced to choose between two or more mean acts we come up against what is essentially the crux of the nature of evil, which in turn is an argument of free will.

    I ask you, if you grant that emotional states are outside of control do you also grant that severity of an emotional state is equally free from constraint? I’m going to assume your answer is yes, feel free to correct me. That said, do you believe that emotional reactions at certain severities become overwhelming, again I’m going to assume yes.

    Your contention that people chose to act mean begs the question of what do you mean by mean and what do you mean by choose. If a person chooses to be cruel for no rational reason, could that be evidence of their character? If their character demands that they act cruelly was their character their choice? Or is character an aggregate state formed by the culmination of choices they’ve previously made, in short do choices give rise to character or does character influence choice?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how you look at it there is no genuine control, merely layers of influence. Your will can tip the scales of action but ultimately since emotion is the source of all motivation, and rationality is simply the calculations of the the rational mind as how to best act on those motivations, there is no hard and fast control.

    This is why axioms of ethics are so important. As with chaos, there is an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions here, which is why this list is aimed at children and why the state is so oppressive towards them.

    Cruelty is by and large the logical outcome of setting some other value statement above statements pertaining to the most good for the most people is the best thing. If you somehow lose sight of the importance of the suffering of others, if you find a way to justify your pleasure costing twice as much pain, then you are wrong in my view.

    But that being said, it’s still not a choice for these people. At no point did anyone wake up and say “I’m going to do the most harm I can today” even terrorists or serial killers with destructive goals are working towards some internal notion of best. It’s just that their definition of best has been corrupted in some way. Mental illness, chemical imbalance, or flawed ideology.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop them if we can, I’m just saying we need to abandon notions of punishment as some kind of righteous duty, and focus on the goal which is obviously the prevention of mean behavior if at all possible. Preferably by removing the motivation to be mean, to understand what meanness is, its antecedents, its mechanisms, and balance our desire to crush meanness with the rights of even the most mean individual.

    I hope this helped hehe.

  • Luis

    This list is superb, thank you. a lot of the ideas listed i have always held to be true, the others i guess i had never thought about haha. I really hope this someday becomes a household list, it would definitely do the world some good. Also some of the comments made make me a bit nauseated…

  • Luis

    This list is superb, thank you. a lot of the ideas listed i have always held to be true, the others i guess i had never thought about haha. I really hope this someday becomes a household list, it would definitely do the world some good. Also some of the comments made make me a bit nauseated…

  • Anonymous

    @Luis

    Don’t be too hard on the haters. I like to think I’ve shown pretty clearly that they can’t help it. Best just to be aware of them and use that awareness to minimize the damage they do to themselves and others.

    One good thing about the mind is it never stops working on new data. I suspect some of the haters won’t be so hateful in a year’s time.

    Thanks for your comment and your support, it’s always welcome.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    @Luis

    Don’t be too hard on the haters. I like to think I’ve shown pretty clearly that they can’t help it. Best just to be aware of them and use that awareness to minimize the damage they do to themselves and others.

    One good thing about the mind is it never stops working on new data. I suspect some of the haters won’t be so hateful in a year’s time.

    Thanks for your comment and your support, it’s always welcome.

  • smith

    I agree with many of the points presented but i find it interesting that one man has decided that this is what kids “should” know. What is it that allows one person to decide what millions of human beings “should” do.

  • smith

    I agree with many of the points presented but i find it interesting that one man has decided that this is what kids “should” know. What is it that allows one person to decide what millions of human beings “should” do.

  • Anonymous

    @smith

    Setting aside that fact that “should know” and “should do” are Radically different concepts, my answer to your question is one of my own. Why is the fact that there is only one of me relevant? #17. Reality is not a democracy. Either I’m right or I’m not about any given claim.

    If I’m right, then these items become facts, very important facts, at which point it seems silly to attack my contention that these facts should be known. Doubly so when that attack is one of what, propriety and etiquette?

    One could just as absurdly ask how dare one astronomer presume to tell all children how the solar system works.

    My list may not contain genius along the lines of “oh by the way the earth moves around the sun, not vice versa” but I can say with conviction if I had read this list when I was say 10, I’d be a LOT better off now. Even if I disagreed, I’d have been exposed to important concepts. And it would have taken like 10 minutes.

    You may not have meant your comment in that way or this, but here is what I read, in effect, in your comment. “How dare you suggest that children are people and have rights?” So if my reaction is more intense than expected, that’s why.

    I’m not forcing this on anyone.

    Let me make it crystal clear that I wrote this for children to find on their own. I did not title this post “things parents should force their children to read” because that’s not what I want. The surest way to kill a child’s interest in a topic is to force it on him. That’s the genius of making high school seniors read 1984. It makes them more pliant workers because suddenly thoughts of revolt and oppression remind them of book reports and they instead focus on skirts and cars.

    What gives me the right, the audacity, to think I have something to offer all children is that I was once a child and unlike the VAST majority of adults I do not see them as property to be sculpted. I don’t care what they choose to do or what to be in and of itself so long as that choice is an informed one. I see them as individuals to be equipped and released.

    By informed I do not mean “choose what I want you to choose or you prove yourself ignorant” which is again what the vast majority of adults mean when they speak of children and their right to make choices.

    If you have an objection to a given item, on any level please do say something. I’m more than willing to defend my contentions. I hope my comments and responses thus far show that my defense is rational and fair. My point being I’m not going to cheat.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    @smith

    Setting aside that fact that “should know” and “should do” are Radically different concepts, my answer to your question is one of my own. Why is the fact that there is only one of me relevant? #17. Reality is not a democracy. Either I’m right or I’m not about any given claim.

    If I’m right, then these items become facts, very important facts, at which point it seems silly to attack my contention that these facts should be known. Doubly so when that attack is one of what, propriety and etiquette?

    One could just as absurdly ask how dare one astronomer presume to tell all children how the solar system works.

    My list may not contain genius along the lines of “oh by the way the earth moves around the sun, not vice versa” but I can say with conviction if I had read this list when I was say 10, I’d be a LOT better off now. Even if I disagreed, I’d have been exposed to important concepts. And it would have taken like 10 minutes.

    You may not have meant your comment in that way or this, but here is what I read, in effect, in your comment. “How dare you suggest that children are people and have rights?” So if my reaction is more intense than expected, that’s why.

    I’m not forcing this on anyone.

    Let me make it crystal clear that I wrote this for children to find on their own. I did not title this post “things parents should force their children to read” because that’s not what I want. The surest way to kill a child’s interest in a topic is to force it on him. That’s the genius of making high school seniors read 1984. It makes them more pliant workers because suddenly thoughts of revolt and oppression remind them of book reports and they instead focus on skirts and cars.

    What gives me the right, the audacity, to think I have something to offer all children is that I was once a child and unlike the VAST majority of adults I do not see them as property to be sculpted. I don’t care what they choose to do or what to be in and of itself so long as that choice is an informed one. I see them as individuals to be equipped and released.

    By informed I do not mean “choose what I want you to choose or you prove yourself ignorant” which is again what the vast majority of adults mean when they speak of children and their right to make choices.

    If you have an objection to a given item, on any level please do say something. I’m more than willing to defend my contentions. I hope my comments and responses thus far show that my defense is rational and fair. My point being I’m not going to cheat.

  • wtf?!

    Wow… I’m not even going to argue with any of you. I’m just going to say you all take yourselves waaaayyyy too seriously and you’re all a bunch liberal, politically-correct, hippie, “don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings,” faggots! And before you say anything, yes I know about “gender politics,” i just don’t give a shit! Teaching kids to be P.C. is going to cause more harm than anything because we will keep lowering our standards so that everyone fits in. Fuck fitting in… and fuck you!

  • wtf?!

    Wow… I’m not even going to argue with any of you. I’m just going to say you all take yourselves waaaayyyy too seriously and you’re all a bunch liberal, politically-correct, hippie, “don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings,” faggots! And before you say anything, yes I know about “gender politics,” i just don’t give a shit! Teaching kids to be P.C. is going to cause more harm than anything because we will keep lowering our standards so that everyone fits in. Fuck fitting in… and fuck you!

  • Anonymous

    @wtf

    I tend to agree on the political correctness front. Honesty and equality should be the order of the day. I wish you had made a more detailed reply, you have a lot of passion obviously and that makes for a motivated debate.

    Your position on gender politics would seem ripe for dissection. For example you seem to reject the concept of fitting in, you’re obviously angry, you make no reference to your own gender, and you use “faggot” as a pejorative.

    It seems fairly obvious to me that you’re most likely a young sexually confused male in a fundamentalist or ultra right wing setting with absolutely no support and strict gender roles.

    And rather than grow despairing at that lack of support you’ve painted the support you could use as the enemy to tolerate its absence. Possibly because you resent it for not being at hand?

    You speak of high standards but I’m guessing you have first hand experience with impossible standards, or at least standards that are impossible for a person with gender issues.

    You clearly care deeply. I hope you decide to actually participate in the debate.

    Your comments won’t be censored so long as they have something to offer.

    I see resentment and pain when I look at your comment.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    @wtf

    I tend to agree on the political correctness front. Honesty and equality should be the order of the day. I wish you had made a more detailed reply, you have a lot of passion obviously and that makes for a motivated debate.

    Your position on gender politics would seem ripe for dissection. For example you seem to reject the concept of fitting in, you’re obviously angry, you make no reference to your own gender, and you use “faggot” as a pejorative.

    It seems fairly obvious to me that you’re most likely a young sexually confused male in a fundamentalist or ultra right wing setting with absolutely no support and strict gender roles.

    And rather than grow despairing at that lack of support you’ve painted the support you could use as the enemy to tolerate its absence. Possibly because you resent it for not being at hand?

    You speak of high standards but I’m guessing you have first hand experience with impossible standards, or at least standards that are impossible for a person with gender issues.

    You clearly care deeply. I hope you decide to actually participate in the debate.

    Your comments won’t be censored so long as they have something to offer.

    I see resentment and pain when I look at your comment.

  • wtf?!

    Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it. My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

    First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality. And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

    Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

    Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant. I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation. Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing. Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds! What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?! Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

    So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry. And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

    And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains. I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

    P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

  • wtf?!

    Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it. My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

    First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality. And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

    Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

    Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant. I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation. Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing. Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds! What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?! Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

    So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry. And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

    And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains. I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

    P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

  • Anonymous

    Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it.

    My actual intellectual integrity is extremely valuable to me. I didn’t block your post because it had something to say, and now I’m rewarded for that integrity by a more serious response. Bravo.

    My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

    Heh, I’ve written letters that I never sent, I suppose this is the digital version. I’ve also written letters to the president which I know went straight to file 13. Same family of incident I suppose.

    First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality.

    Noted. But what is your reason for having such a low opinion of homosexuals? I have a theory given the new information.

    And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

    Ahh so your issue is with overload, not underload. Not to be self serving but that’s pretty close in my mind, as I predicted an extreme setting, I just got the wrong end of the spectrum.

    Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

    When the term “gay” got it’s third meaning of synonym for bad, I fought it. I considered it unfair to associate gays or homosexuality with anything which is not good. I considered it another form of oppression or slur and while I may not be gay myself I am seriously a student of oppression and I am it’s sincere enemy.

    That being said, I don’t like your using the term faggot in this way, but I will grudgingly accept that it maybe a genuine use in your social circle and not just back pedaling. However let me say being flippant or not, I would bet that the vast majority of people reading your comment saw homosexual hate, and I will also add that coming from the south as I do, I’ve heard similar arguments fall from the lips of serious racists attempting to soften the definition of various slurs.

    Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant.

    Considering the subject came up in a single comment perhaps “constant” is a bit misleading. I was citing multiple reasons for a single conclusion. One I can of course not prove. Nor can you disprove it I might add. I’m content to drop that line of attack completely because at best is exposes your motives, it has no impact however on your accuracy.

    I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation.

    My sexuality is confusing but not along the lines of which gender I prefer, more what I want to do with them. I’ll spare you the details. If I were homosexual I would have zero motivation to hide it or even resent it. But again I can’t prove anything.

    Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing.

    I do. In my opinion they are. The point of a standard is something which should be met by all. An impossible standard is deceptive and callous. It’s a way of manipulating people because you for whatever reason are too weak or mean to approach them honestly. They are also often the product of projection. Like an obsessive parent setting absurd rules for their children to evade imagined enemies.

    Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds!

    Only if the same people that define the standards also define growth. You seem to have a lot of implicit trust in those placed by chance above us socially. I feel your vision of education is hopelessly naive. You’ve fallen into a false dichotomy trap. What people who make your argument fail to recognize is your higher standards were brutally enforced for a long time and that era in our history was no utopia. It gave rise to horrors we of this generation would typically have difficulty even imagining.

    And there was WAY less to know, and what was known was growing WAY slower.

    Further you are in effect advocating back slide. We can no more return to former methods of education than we can return to horse drawn carts. The demands on the system are completely different now. The whole concept of education needs to change. We already force people to spend up to half their lives preparing to live. Half!

    What happens when the amount of data available to humanity is doubled? You realize it’s expanding exponentially right? Who chooses what kids NEED to know? Why do they (the choosers) deserve that kind of power? Collective education is dying friend, because its habitat is dead. The world has moved on. Rail against it if you wish, it will change nothing except your survival chances.

    But if you want to discuss an actual solution, I have some ideas. The point isn’t test scores. The point is happiness and survival. Do you agree? Education to me is a means to an end.

    What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?!

    But what if demanding more of them is counter productive? Can you say with conviction you’re well versed in why education changed direction in the first place? do you even know what education is actually for? Which is better, an empty school full of standards and principals or a full one full of sub par everything?

    Again, for me, it’s a false dichotomy. Both suck. A third option is needed. And it’s growing. In my opinion we need to teach kids how to teach themselves.

    Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

    You seem to equate test scores with intelligence, and you seem to think intelligence can be earned through work. Why? That view of the mind is simplistic and unrealistic in my opinion. Not everything can be learned by any given brain.

    So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry.

    With respect, I don’t think you know why you’re angry. I suspect you are generalizing and projecting a general frustration. But again, I can’t prove that and ultimately it doesn’t matter.

    And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

    Might I suggest you reconsider your enemy? What if the real cause of the problem has convinced you to blame the wrong group? Are you absolutely certain you’re blaming the right people? The right concepts? Rather than say what’s wrong, how about you examine history for the effects of what you think is right. The world has tried your hard nosed fuck the weak approach and time and again it fails, are you seriously going to makes excuses for every instance? At what point will you concede perhaps the concept itself is flawed to the point that you begin the search for a new class of solution?

    Ask yourself, what would it take to prove you wrong? If you can’t answer that you might be a fanatic.

    And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains.

    Might I suggest hoping for a world where they don’t need either? Let me suggest a somewhat outlandish alternative, but food for thought. Ants are born knowing how to walk manage a hive and how to speak the chemical language of ants. Horses are born knowing how to run, bees are born knowing the complicated dance communication system, birds are born with astounding amounts of complicated mating behavior. What if we could see to it children are born knowing how to read and write and speak?

    I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

    Excellent! Now that I can get behind. Not to toot my own horn but I’m pretty sure I know what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it. But if you’re more comfy being pissed and you already think you’ve got the answer, I might not have anything for you.

    P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

    I’m writing a book based on this list. This debate will be in it. When it’s done I’ll post a link to it here. If you’d give some of my work a chance I think you’ll find something useful. You might not agree with all of it of course, and feel free to comment when you don’t, but you should at last give it a chance.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it.

    My actual intellectual integrity is extremely valuable to me. I didn’t block your post because it had something to say, and now I’m rewarded for that integrity by a more serious response. Bravo.

    My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

    Heh, I’ve written letters that I never sent, I suppose this is the digital version. I’ve also written letters to the president which I know went straight to file 13. Same family of incident I suppose.

    First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality.

    Noted. But what is your reason for having such a low opinion of homosexuals? I have a theory given the new information.

    And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

    Ahh so your issue is with overload, not underload. Not to be self serving but that’s pretty close in my mind, as I predicted an extreme setting, I just got the wrong end of the spectrum.

    Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

    When the term “gay” got it’s third meaning of synonym for bad, I fought it. I considered it unfair to associate gays or homosexuality with anything which is not good. I considered it another form of oppression or slur and while I may not be gay myself I am seriously a student of oppression and I am it’s sincere enemy.

    That being said, I don’t like your using the term faggot in this way, but I will grudgingly accept that it maybe a genuine use in your social circle and not just back pedaling. However let me say being flippant or not, I would bet that the vast majority of people reading your comment saw homosexual hate, and I will also add that coming from the south as I do, I’ve heard similar arguments fall from the lips of serious racists attempting to soften the definition of various slurs.

    Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant.

    Considering the subject came up in a single comment perhaps “constant” is a bit misleading. I was citing multiple reasons for a single conclusion. One I can of course not prove. Nor can you disprove it I might add. I’m content to drop that line of attack completely because at best is exposes your motives, it has no impact however on your accuracy.

    I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation.

    My sexuality is confusing but not along the lines of which gender I prefer, more what I want to do with them. I’ll spare you the details. If I were homosexual I would have zero motivation to hide it or even resent it. But again I can’t prove anything.

    Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing.

    I do. In my opinion they are. The point of a standard is something which should be met by all. An impossible standard is deceptive and callous. It’s a way of manipulating people because you for whatever reason are too weak or mean to approach them honestly. They are also often the product of projection. Like an obsessive parent setting absurd rules for their children to evade imagined enemies.

    Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds!

    Only if the same people that define the standards also define growth. You seem to have a lot of implicit trust in those placed by chance above us socially. I feel your vision of education is hopelessly naive. You’ve fallen into a false dichotomy trap. What people who make your argument fail to recognize is your higher standards were brutally enforced for a long time and that era in our history was no utopia. It gave rise to horrors we of this generation would typically have difficulty even imagining.

    And there was WAY less to know, and what was known was growing WAY slower.

    Further you are in effect advocating back slide. We can no more return to former methods of education than we can return to horse drawn carts. The demands on the system are completely different now. The whole concept of education needs to change. We already force people to spend up to half their lives preparing to live. Half!

    What happens when the amount of data available to humanity is doubled? You realize it’s expanding exponentially right? Who chooses what kids NEED to know? Why do they (the choosers) deserve that kind of power? Collective education is dying friend, because its habitat is dead. The world has moved on. Rail against it if you wish, it will change nothing except your survival chances.

    But if you want to discuss an actual solution, I have some ideas. The point isn’t test scores. The point is happiness and survival. Do you agree? Education to me is a means to an end.

    What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?!

    But what if demanding more of them is counter productive? Can you say with conviction you’re well versed in why education changed direction in the first place? do you even know what education is actually for? Which is better, an empty school full of standards and principals or a full one full of sub par everything?

    Again, for me, it’s a false dichotomy. Both suck. A third option is needed. And it’s growing. In my opinion we need to teach kids how to teach themselves.

    Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

    You seem to equate test scores with intelligence, and you seem to think intelligence can be earned through work. Why? That view of the mind is simplistic and unrealistic in my opinion. Not everything can be learned by any given brain.

    So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry.

    With respect, I don’t think you know why you’re angry. I suspect you are generalizing and projecting a general frustration. But again, I can’t prove that and ultimately it doesn’t matter.

    And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

    Might I suggest you reconsider your enemy? What if the real cause of the problem has convinced you to blame the wrong group? Are you absolutely certain you’re blaming the right people? The right concepts? Rather than say what’s wrong, how about you examine history for the effects of what you think is right. The world has tried your hard nosed fuck the weak approach and time and again it fails, are you seriously going to makes excuses for every instance? At what point will you concede perhaps the concept itself is flawed to the point that you begin the search for a new class of solution?

    Ask yourself, what would it take to prove you wrong? If you can’t answer that you might be a fanatic.

    And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains.

    Might I suggest hoping for a world where they don’t need either? Let me suggest a somewhat outlandish alternative, but food for thought. Ants are born knowing how to walk manage a hive and how to speak the chemical language of ants. Horses are born knowing how to run, bees are born knowing the complicated dance communication system, birds are born with astounding amounts of complicated mating behavior. What if we could see to it children are born knowing how to read and write and speak?

    I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

    Excellent! Now that I can get behind. Not to toot my own horn but I’m pretty sure I know what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it. But if you’re more comfy being pissed and you already think you’ve got the answer, I might not have anything for you.

    P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

    I’m writing a book based on this list. This debate will be in it. When it’s done I’ll post a link to it here. If you’d give some of my work a chance I think you’ll find something useful. You might not agree with all of it of course, and feel free to comment when you don’t, but you should at last give it a chance.

  • wtf?!

    Hello again,
    I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

    As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

    “Gay” & its third meaning; I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

    I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree. It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars. I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

    I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days. So many people are lame and have no integrity! I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad. And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away. The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

    Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

    About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

    About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate? And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance. And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all. Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter. Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

    I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

  • wtf?!

    Hello again,
    I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

    As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

    “Gay” & its third meaning; I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

    I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree. It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars. I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

    I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days. So many people are lame and have no integrity! I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad. And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away. The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

    Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

    About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

    About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate? And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance. And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all. Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter. Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

    I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

  • Anonymous

    Hello again,
    I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

    Yeah I realize that is your claim, I’m simply saying its exactly like some old redneck trying to explain there is such a thing as a white nigger (sadly I’ve heard this line of reasoning, more than once) to justify the use of the term. Regardless of how you actually mean it I’m saying you come off sounding like a bigot. The attempt to define a slur behaviorally doesn’t stop it from being a slur in my opinion. It’s just ink in the water.

    As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

    Careful that you don’t let your enemies define you. What I mean is sometimes we grow to hate a group so much that ANYTHING that opposes them we begin to support even if that support is irrational and self destructive. Just to illustrate the point: “What? Liberals like Oxygen!? Well screw that! *suffocates self with a plastic bag*” You get the idea.

    We as humans have more in common than not. Competition demands that we focus on minor differences and waste resources trying to win. Sure that might lead to slightly stronger people being left standing but at what cost to the whole?

    I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

    Agreed. But since you seem to be on that side of the fence what if those standards you think so highly of expel children for cursing? Are you sure your ethics are universally applicable or are self consistent?

    My point is that freedom means putting up with stuff you don’t like also. Just something to think about.

    I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree.

    Indeed, while I don’t agree to disagree. I will say that the subject is a composite subject and we should try to figure out premises where we disagree. Standards can mean whatever you want them to mean, so let’s be clear about our respective sides.

    Standards in my mind are often euphemisms for classism and racism. Case in point. It’s hard to be good in school when your neighborhood is a war zone. Simply kicking those children out of school because they have too many real problems to give a shit about math homework is simplistic and radically unfair especially when its our laws that created the war zone in the first place. I believe you understand that there are larger forces at work than simply changing the numbers on what constitutes a B+.

    For instance how do you feel about prohibition?

    It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars.

    But those are subjective terms. How do you propose to increase standards if you don’t mean changing a test score demand? Also, what if the issue is simply funding? What if the current system would work if it merely had four times as much money?

    In my opinion you, like many other people, are under the impression that the system is fixable, that they are searching for a solution, and they just haven’t figured it out. Of course you think you have, and you may be right. My point is you misunderstand the purpose of education. It’s not here to make children smarter.

    I can’t say it any better than George Carlin did. (http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/george_carlin_simply_tells_it_how_it_is)

    “There’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, ever be fixed. It’s never gonna get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, the politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they’ve long since bought and payed for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, the City Halls. They got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They gotchya by the balls! They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well we know what they want, they want more for themselves, and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed well-educated people capable of critical thinking, they’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right, they don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure how how badly they’ve been getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that, you know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it…

    Like the list says, common sense isn’t dead, you’re just missing the point.

    I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

    Then I’d love your thoughts on this. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=558

    I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days.

    That’s not a reason. Why do you care if people are soft? How does them being “soft” (what do you mean anyway?) in and of itself impact your day? I don’t particularity feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. (The movie industry would rock though. That man can direct his ass off.)

    I don’t care how strong or weak people are. I want them happy and alive and working towards keeping everyone else happy and alive.

    Also you are overlooking a seriously important truth. Weak people overcompensate well into greatness. You think Stephen Hawking would be half the scientists he is if he didn’t have so much time to sit and think? The irony is people who speak about strength also speak about the value of pain. But weakness and pain go hand in hand. Your views are likely to be inconsistent.

    So many people are lame and have no integrity!

    Agreed, but you have to ask yourself, why? What makes them that way? Don’t hate people for exploiting an opportunity. Ask why that opportunity is allowed to exist. What compels it’s existence? The purpose of my life is to redirect rage and energy in the proper direction, and in my opinion, after over a decade of consideration, you’re mad at the wrong things.

    I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad.

    Agreed, but it’s about to get a whole LOT better.

    And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away.

    That’s right, they don’t care. People are machines and they run program and react to the environment. But that’s actually a good thing because it means our problems are solvable. The greed that drives The Company will force them to develop the disruptive technologies we’ll use to free ourselves of them. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663) And it will be bloodless and welcomed.

    The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

    Then the fuck the weak side is weak. You’ve simply stated how they failed as if it’s an excuse. You’re like the guy that wants the other solider to put down the rifle and “fight like a man.” Well that’s just silly. This is war. And the point is to win by any means available. Also its incredibly callous and short sighted. You won’t always be strong. What about the people who are stronger, do they by virtue of their strength alone have the right to own you or the children you want to have?

    Ethics transcend strength in my opinion. Fortunately ethics evolved as a weapon. The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago. Your ability to work together is what got us here. And it will allow us to shed the chains that up to this point have been the very foundation of our nature.

    http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=694 (You might like this.)

    I have great faith in the quality of our future, though unlike the normal use of the word my faith has reason.

    Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

    Yes, assuming it were possible for a lifeform to be born with an arbitrary piece of data, and assuming we discovered a safe way to implement that trait, what would be your reaction? More importantly what do you think The Company’s reaction would be?

    About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

    Put simply the current state of the world is inevitable. We are under the same pressure now as we were when we invented farming. Those pressures manifest as you see. We are fundamentally the same organism. We are minds printed on chimps. We have halted natural selection with good reason. (By coddling the weak, to put it in terms you can readily grasp.)

    Evolution up till now has been erosion, now it must be sculpture. The development of certain technologies will free us. (I linked to the post about about them.)

    About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate?

    The whole of the comments will be included but they my not take this form. This debate may be included as a stand alone unit. Possibly an addendum to some section based on objections. Debates like this are the equivalent of peer review. They give me the chance to test my logic in the field, to be sure I’m not missing some glaring hole. People think I’m arrogant, they think I’m closed minded. but the truth is I’m just pretty sure I’m right and until someone can demonstrate otherwise I’ll hold a point.

    Reading my older work shows that I do evolve, and that I do adjust my position based on reality. I used to blame the wrong people also. But debate sharpened my viewpoint. It moves ever closer to parity with reality.

    And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance.

    Then start with the links in this reply. You seem passionate about education, that’s a great starting point. Children represent the future. I don’t plan on having any at the moment. My legacy is for the moment text.

    And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all.

    Perhaps you have something to teach me. If you find a solid irreducible point where I am wrong I absolutely want to hear why.

    Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter.

    Thank you, as above, banter as you put it is important for me as well. How else can I test my world view short of being appointed planetary Governor for a year?

    Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

    The more you talk the less I think of you as angry. I would say intense would be a more accurate term.

    I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

    See that right there some (not me) would call weak. You’re supposed to stand your ground regardless of what you think, you’re supposed to beat me and dominate and win. Clearly you see the advantages of the supposedly weak path. For one it’s honest. And as explained above, in the long term, stronger. Because whatever our shared goals are, they are served more by our pulling in our own directions than they are by us attacking each other.

    Cooperation trumps competition in the long run. Our real enemies are death and pain, scarcity and need.

    Not eachother.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    Hello again,
    I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

    Yeah I realize that is your claim, I’m simply saying its exactly like some old redneck trying to explain there is such a thing as a white nigger (sadly I’ve heard this line of reasoning, more than once) to justify the use of the term. Regardless of how you actually mean it I’m saying you come off sounding like a bigot. The attempt to define a slur behaviorally doesn’t stop it from being a slur in my opinion. It’s just ink in the water.

    As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

    Careful that you don’t let your enemies define you. What I mean is sometimes we grow to hate a group so much that ANYTHING that opposes them we begin to support even if that support is irrational and self destructive. Just to illustrate the point: “What? Liberals like Oxygen!? Well screw that! *suffocates self with a plastic bag*” You get the idea.

    We as humans have more in common than not. Competition demands that we focus on minor differences and waste resources trying to win. Sure that might lead to slightly stronger people being left standing but at what cost to the whole?

    I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

    Agreed. But since you seem to be on that side of the fence what if those standards you think so highly of expel children for cursing? Are you sure your ethics are universally applicable or are self consistent?

    My point is that freedom means putting up with stuff you don’t like also. Just something to think about.

    I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree.

    Indeed, while I don’t agree to disagree. I will say that the subject is a composite subject and we should try to figure out premises where we disagree. Standards can mean whatever you want them to mean, so let’s be clear about our respective sides.

    Standards in my mind are often euphemisms for classism and racism. Case in point. It’s hard to be good in school when your neighborhood is a war zone. Simply kicking those children out of school because they have too many real problems to give a shit about math homework is simplistic and radically unfair especially when its our laws that created the war zone in the first place. I believe you understand that there are larger forces at work than simply changing the numbers on what constitutes a B+.

    For instance how do you feel about prohibition?

    It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars.

    But those are subjective terms. How do you propose to increase standards if you don’t mean changing a test score demand? Also, what if the issue is simply funding? What if the current system would work if it merely had four times as much money?

    In my opinion you, like many other people, are under the impression that the system is fixable, that they are searching for a solution, and they just haven’t figured it out. Of course you think you have, and you may be right. My point is you misunderstand the purpose of education. It’s not here to make children smarter.

    I can’t say it any better than George Carlin did. (http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/george_carlin_simply_tells_it_how_it_is)

    “There’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, ever be fixed. It’s never gonna get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, the politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they’ve long since bought and payed for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, the City Halls. They got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They gotchya by the balls! They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well we know what they want, they want more for themselves, and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed well-educated people capable of critical thinking, they’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right, they don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure how how badly they’ve been getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that, you know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it…

    Like the list says, common sense isn’t dead, you’re just missing the point.

    I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

    Then I’d love your thoughts on this. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=558

    I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days.

    That’s not a reason. Why do you care if people are soft? How does them being “soft” (what do you mean anyway?) in and of itself impact your day? I don’t particularity feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. (The movie industry would rock though. That man can direct his ass off.)

    I don’t care how strong or weak people are. I want them happy and alive and working towards keeping everyone else happy and alive.

    Also you are overlooking a seriously important truth. Weak people overcompensate well into greatness. You think Stephen Hawking would be half the scientists he is if he didn’t have so much time to sit and think? The irony is people who speak about strength also speak about the value of pain. But weakness and pain go hand in hand. Your views are likely to be inconsistent.

    So many people are lame and have no integrity!

    Agreed, but you have to ask yourself, why? What makes them that way? Don’t hate people for exploiting an opportunity. Ask why that opportunity is allowed to exist. What compels it’s existence? The purpose of my life is to redirect rage and energy in the proper direction, and in my opinion, after over a decade of consideration, you’re mad at the wrong things.

    I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad.

    Agreed, but it’s about to get a whole LOT better.

    And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away.

    That’s right, they don’t care. People are machines and they run program and react to the environment. But that’s actually a good thing because it means our problems are solvable. The greed that drives The Company will force them to develop the disruptive technologies we’ll use to free ourselves of them. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663) And it will be bloodless and welcomed.

    The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

    Then the fuck the weak side is weak. You’ve simply stated how they failed as if it’s an excuse. You’re like the guy that wants the other solider to put down the rifle and “fight like a man.” Well that’s just silly. This is war. And the point is to win by any means available. Also its incredibly callous and short sighted. You won’t always be strong. What about the people who are stronger, do they by virtue of their strength alone have the right to own you or the children you want to have?

    Ethics transcend strength in my opinion. Fortunately ethics evolved as a weapon. The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago. Your ability to work together is what got us here. And it will allow us to shed the chains that up to this point have been the very foundation of our nature.

    http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=694 (You might like this.)

    I have great faith in the quality of our future, though unlike the normal use of the word my faith has reason.

    Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

    Yes, assuming it were possible for a lifeform to be born with an arbitrary piece of data, and assuming we discovered a safe way to implement that trait, what would be your reaction? More importantly what do you think The Company’s reaction would be?

    About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

    Put simply the current state of the world is inevitable. We are under the same pressure now as we were when we invented farming. Those pressures manifest as you see. We are fundamentally the same organism. We are minds printed on chimps. We have halted natural selection with good reason. (By coddling the weak, to put it in terms you can readily grasp.)

    Evolution up till now has been erosion, now it must be sculpture. The development of certain technologies will free us. (I linked to the post about about them.)

    About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate?

    The whole of the comments will be included but they my not take this form. This debate may be included as a stand alone unit. Possibly an addendum to some section based on objections. Debates like this are the equivalent of peer review. They give me the chance to test my logic in the field, to be sure I’m not missing some glaring hole. People think I’m arrogant, they think I’m closed minded. but the truth is I’m just pretty sure I’m right and until someone can demonstrate otherwise I’ll hold a point.

    Reading my older work shows that I do evolve, and that I do adjust my position based on reality. I used to blame the wrong people also. But debate sharpened my viewpoint. It moves ever closer to parity with reality.

    And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance.

    Then start with the links in this reply. You seem passionate about education, that’s a great starting point. Children represent the future. I don’t plan on having any at the moment. My legacy is for the moment text.

    And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all.

    Perhaps you have something to teach me. If you find a solid irreducible point where I am wrong I absolutely want to hear why.

    Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter.

    Thank you, as above, banter as you put it is important for me as well. How else can I test my world view short of being appointed planetary Governor for a year?

    Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

    The more you talk the less I think of you as angry. I would say intense would be a more accurate term.

    I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

    See that right there some (not me) would call weak. You’re supposed to stand your ground regardless of what you think, you’re supposed to beat me and dominate and win. Clearly you see the advantages of the supposedly weak path. For one it’s honest. And as explained above, in the long term, stronger. Because whatever our shared goals are, they are served more by our pulling in our own directions than they are by us attacking each other.

    Cooperation trumps competition in the long run. Our real enemies are death and pain, scarcity and need.

    Not eachother.

  • wtf?!

    Part of me explaining my continued use of the word “faggot” is because I could really care less if someone thinks I am a “bigot.” People need to calm the fuck down about language! If you get all bent out of shape when someone says a word you are giving them way too much credit! You should watch this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug) and I’d love to hear your opinion on it.

    I don’t let my enemies define me, but if they throw the first stone I have no reservations about throwing one back. I think your anti-competition ideas sound way to much like communism… Or they make you sound cheap, like a shitty anarchist that shops at hot topic. There will never be a way for everyone to get along with each other! It’s a fairytale liberal-socialists tell their kids before bed!

    Ethics… I don’t believe anyone’s ethics could ever be “universally applicable.” (see communism or the nazis)

    Standards; I think 90% of the time when people blame things on classism or racism it is a cop-out. With equal opportunity employment and everyone not wanting to seem racist, it is easier to get hired for a job if you aren’t “white.” I’m not classist or racist and I’m poor as shit. People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking for scapegoats. If you really believe “our laws” did this to “them” then you’re a nut-job. They did this to themselves. (And please don’t give me a multiple paragraph response complaining about my use of the word “nut-job” because it is offensive to middle-eastern dwarfs in their 30’s or some shit like that.)

    “How do you feel about prohibition?”
    Could you be a little more specific? Are you actually talking about alcohol in the 20’s?

    You keep throwing around these “what-if’s” like you have the secret answers to everything and it’s making you sound like the wizard of oz. How can you suggest that it could be funding related and then point to Carlin saying it’ll never change? It makes you sound like you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

    Your “New School” paper isn’t bad, it’s just unreasonable… It gets back to the same problems I already mentioned… There are no universally applicable ethics!

    I think our understanding of the word soft is the same because I do feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. And about Stephen Hawking… I hope the sit and think comment was your attempt at humor.

    How are people speaking about strength and speaking about the value of pain ironic? If you overcome pain you can get strength.

    I do hate people for exploiting an opportunity because that just makes them lazy assholes. I hate people for who they are on the inside. People need to take responsibility for their own choices. So you’re saying if some poor old lady drops a $50 bill you’d just take it because it’s fine… You’re just “exploiting an opportunity.”

    And now we get back to the crazy conspiracy theories… So the magical “Company” will have to develop “disruptive technologies” that will let us “free ourselves?” All I have to say is maybe smoking crack and watching The Matrix trilogy isn’t the best way to spend every second of the time you aren’t on here telling people how to live their lives and that you are right about everything.

    The more you write the more loony I think you are. “The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago.” Natural selection is no longer applicable because we don’t happen to live within the parameters of “nature” that that theory applies to.

    Can you please stop using the phrase “The Company” because my stomach hurts from laughing so much every time you say it.

    And yes… I guess I’m probably more intense than angry.

    And last but not least… The whole “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar. Was supposed to be a joke. Like something out of a Bogart movie. You need to stop taking everything so seriously and remember that some people like to have fun through humor instead of reading sci-fi novels and praying to lord xenu.

  • wtf?!

    Part of me explaining my continued use of the word “faggot” is because I could really care less if someone thinks I am a “bigot.” People need to calm the fuck down about language! If you get all bent out of shape when someone says a word you are giving them way too much credit! You should watch this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug) and I’d love to hear your opinion on it.

    I don’t let my enemies define me, but if they throw the first stone I have no reservations about throwing one back. I think your anti-competition ideas sound way to much like communism… Or they make you sound cheap, like a shitty anarchist that shops at hot topic. There will never be a way for everyone to get along with each other! It’s a fairytale liberal-socialists tell their kids before bed!

    Ethics… I don’t believe anyone’s ethics could ever be “universally applicable.” (see communism or the nazis)

    Standards; I think 90% of the time when people blame things on classism or racism it is a cop-out. With equal opportunity employment and everyone not wanting to seem racist, it is easier to get hired for a job if you aren’t “white.” I’m not classist or racist and I’m poor as shit. People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking for scapegoats. If you really believe “our laws” did this to “them” then you’re a nut-job. They did this to themselves. (And please don’t give me a multiple paragraph response complaining about my use of the word “nut-job” because it is offensive to middle-eastern dwarfs in their 30’s or some shit like that.)

    “How do you feel about prohibition?”
    Could you be a little more specific? Are you actually talking about alcohol in the 20’s?

    You keep throwing around these “what-if’s” like you have the secret answers to everything and it’s making you sound like the wizard of oz. How can you suggest that it could be funding related and then point to Carlin saying it’ll never change? It makes you sound like you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

    Your “New School” paper isn’t bad, it’s just unreasonable… It gets back to the same problems I already mentioned… There are no universally applicable ethics!

    I think our understanding of the word soft is the same because I do feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. And about Stephen Hawking… I hope the sit and think comment was your attempt at humor.

    How are people speaking about strength and speaking about the value of pain ironic? If you overcome pain you can get strength.

    I do hate people for exploiting an opportunity because that just makes them lazy assholes. I hate people for who they are on the inside. People need to take responsibility for their own choices. So you’re saying if some poor old lady drops a $50 bill you’d just take it because it’s fine… You’re just “exploiting an opportunity.”

    And now we get back to the crazy conspiracy theories… So the magical “Company” will have to develop “disruptive technologies” that will let us “free ourselves?” All I have to say is maybe smoking crack and watching The Matrix trilogy isn’t the best way to spend every second of the time you aren’t on here telling people how to live their lives and that you are right about everything.

    The more you write the more loony I think you are. “The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago.” Natural selection is no longer applicable because we don’t happen to live within the parameters of “nature” that that theory applies to.

    Can you please stop using the phrase “The Company” because my stomach hurts from laughing so much every time you say it.

    And yes… I guess I’m probably more intense than angry.

    And last but not least… The whole “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar. Was supposed to be a joke. Like something out of a Bogart movie. You need to stop taking everything so seriously and remember that some people like to have fun through humor instead of reading sci-fi novels and praying to lord xenu.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    *facepalm* Ok so this time giving the shit tossing chimp a chance to hold a rational conversation was a mistake. Maybe if I respond in kind a quanta of data will seep into that TV crafted brain of yours. So here we go insult laden rant for insult laden rant.

    That’s what you you want right? Eye for an eye? No peace in our time? *shrugs* its harmless in this context so why not.

    Part of me explaining my continued use of the word “faggot” is because I could really care less if someone thinks I am a “bigot.”

    I love that old saw. If you don’t care, why are you explaining yourself? The truth is you do care its just that it makes you so much cooler and tougher to not care so you pretend you don’t and you desperately want everyone to think you don’t.

    The fact is you ARE a bigot regardless of what anyone thinks.

    Company note: They make apathy cool so that you get in the habit of doing nothing when exposed to injustice. This makes you orders of magnitude easier to control. The height of rebellion in your stratum is smoking a little pot and listening to an angry song.

    The most recent shock test was the bush administration as a whole. It’s been made clear that if we won’t revolt under those circumstances we’re not going to at all.

    People need to calm the fuck down about language!

    So if I walked up to you an said “You’re a stupid cocksucker” and you failed to interpret that what I meant by that was “Have a nice day” you need to calm down about language?

    See, this is why they need to teach logic in primary school. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that language, the conveyance of ideas, only works if we can agree on terms. If I say five and mean six then you’re not going to know how many apples to get.

    And assuming you’re not completely full of shit for the sake of argument, which in reality you absolutely are, when ass hats like you decide to just arbitrarily change the meaning of a word, like say “faggot” for example to hide the fact that you’re just this side of Fred Phelps, its absolutely insane to then blame everyone else for reacting to the understood definition, not your own random, self-serving, bullshit, new one.

    What people actually “need” to do is craft an environment where brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissists, like yourself run far and fast while staying as quiet as possible, so that time and nature can gracefully correct the error of your obviously unplanned birth.

    See, in the real world, words have meaning. But since your entire life is devoid of meaning, indeed since you run from it hurling insults behind you like an octopus inking the water to cover his escape, you project a lack of meaning onto everything you say and do, which is why you think it’s ok to just randomly change the definition of words to evade that responsibility you later claim to love so much, because you know deep down you’re not even saying anytuing in the first place, you’re just grunting and crying your emotional state into the tribe around you hoping someone will figure out what baby wants and give it to him. Which is hilariously ironic considering your self imagine is proportionally inflated, such that you think you’re some sort of perfectly independent Übermensch who’s in a position to comment on the weakness of an entire species and culture who’s doing its level best to keep parasitic babies like you (and me) alive.

    The best you can come up with is subjective complaint, crassness, repetition of TV cliches, and shaming. That should tell you something but you’re not even attempting to think logically. You’re a chimp, all you know is what you feel, you barely even think by any rational definition of the word, you just remember stuff and sort it by emotional weight, emotional weight assigned by advertisers. You’re a trained monkey. Self replenishing cattle to be used and aimed and thrown away, and whats more you’ve been conditioned to be proud of it and toss handfuls of yesterday’s dinner at anyone who steps out of line.

    Like the SciFi says, you can’t free a fish from water.

    But of course in order for all that to work you have to think you’re the enlightened one, that you’re the rebel, and yet selectively ignore the fact that there are obviously millions of you already, making the same inane choices, the same self serving inconsistent, soundbite, suggestions, with all the profundity of a fortune cookie printed in New Jersey, over and over to absolutely no effect.

    It was a mistake to answer you, and my reaction to you is a testament to my intellectual integrity. The sensible thing to do would be to just delete your comments, but that would just encourage those like you to see its absence and then think they are original for thinking what you’re saying. It’s best if I let one of you crap throwers in and make an example. That way when I refuse to publish future versions of you it won’t be censorship it’ll be spam cleanup.

    If you get all bent out of shape when someone says a word you are giving them way too much credit!

    You don’t even know what that means. You just attach some vague notion of losing face to the phrase “giving credit.” Besides we’ve already established that you’re perfectly content to randomly change the meaning of words, so really there’s no way for me to know what you’re actually trying to say. You’re like an ignorant driver honking and expecting the whole world to understand what you mean with your monosyllabic cries for attention. *bark bark* “What’s that lassie? The Copenhagen interpretation is bullshit when one considers the logical advantages of the hidden variables approach? Good dog!”

    You’re like a dog, cat, or baby looking to the world and making incoherent sounds hoping someone will give you a stroke, a morsel, or a clean diaper. You’re a member of an entire generation of children trained to think they are adults. Trained to respond to bells and subtle emotional mechanisms of control that started with your defective accidental parents and ended with your tiny minded state sponsored babysitters and continues with your TV and eventuality if you work hard enough, with your nanny wife and Junior Spies.

    You walk around in a mild state of semi tantrum, waiting for the next Two Minutes Hate thinking of little else but the toys an the other kids, and how you’re so much better and different then all of them. You’re a powerless tyrant in a padded playpen shrieking for you know not what, until the god box in the corner starts singing and showing you bright colors and offering sugar.

    You should watch this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug) and I’d love to hear your opinion on it.

    Made me chuckle but I see layers of social training in it. From the fact that they shoehorned a black guy in there to evade cries of racism, to the contestant’s stubborn refusal to challenge the system.

    It seems to me like toddlers sitting in a club house whispering “shit” and “fuck” to each other, marveling at their own brazenness wit.

    Slurs are the new curse words. You can say shit and fuck all day, they are growing more and more accepted. But slurs retain the power to annoy. And that video caters to that urge to cuss like a grownup.

    Tittering schoolboys and a cute joke mercilessly run into the ground.

    I don’t let my enemies define me, but if they throw the first stone I have no reservations about throwing one back.

    Heh, You don’t let your enemies define you, you just let them completely control the nature of your reaction? And you don’t even see the conflict do you. Sad.

    On the plus side we know that’s bullshit. You WANT to throw rocks, else my attempt to rationally debate you would have been answered in kind, instead I get invective. So at least you’re self determined in that you choose to be a troll ass regardless of the forum.

    I think your anti-competition ideas sound way to much like communism…

    Glad to see McCarthyism is alive and well in the ignorant younger classes. Talking to you is reminding me me of that survey that found that a number of American high school graduates though Germany was an ally in WW2. You understand about as much as communism as a sparrow understands Kant. So save your ignorant Ted Nugent flag waving for the Bush rally. Go swim in the oil slick if you think capitalism is awesome. Besides, competition crushing oligopoly is hardly a free market. The world hasn’t seen large scale capitalism, ever.

    You don’t even understand what you’re defending, much less attacking. You just want to pretend that you can back stab your way to the top one day. So many poor morons defending the rich because they secretly think their meteoric rise to absurd wealth is just a day and a scam away.

    Or they make you sound cheap, like a shitty anarchist that shops at hot topic.

    And once again the best argument you can come up with is some kind of shit tossing, get back in line with he other drones, cry. To people like you the height of individuality is what logo you selected for your cap, your tshirt, and your shoes. And yet you feel justified in taking a stab at commercialized faux individualism. The irony meter is really taking a beating today.

    You know even less about anarchy than you do about communism. You ignorantly paint any act of compassion as socialist (you don’t understand socialism either, which as your probably didn’t know is a separate animal than communism). Which is hilarious considering how much of a mass produced specialist tool you obviously are. You actually think you’re unique don’t you. That delusion would be harmless if it weren’t coupled with this militant “I’m so awesome for wanting to hurt people” attitude.

    You’re like some brain dead apple tossing unwashed peasant crowded around the witch at some French dark ages public burning. You hurl your rotten fruit, and you scream your obscenities and you actually think you’re NOT a blatant tool of the state. You watch the poor sap fry and you think “serves them right, if they were smart like me they’d be tossing apples, I’m so strong, look at me, listen to me.”

    You are bland, and mean, and slow witted, and impressionable and yet closed minded. You accept new orders from the god box without question and the crowd and nothing else. Rationality in you has been utterly destroyed.

    Now it’s my turn to share a YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKZkBOp4nI But I know for a fact you won’t watch it, it’s 10 whole minutes and it even has subsequent parts, your attention span for anything that lacks cruelty is probably roughly 30 seconds.

    There will never be a way for everyone to get along with each other!

    How convenient for you. Thats makes it perfectly ok for you to go on being an aggressive social tick. Did it ever occur to that infantile mind of yours that maybe the reason for that is because of people like you making it so to evade the responsibility for trying? Of course not, that thought doesn’t make your dick hard or make you laugh at someone’s expense like the ignorant bully whelp you are.

    Why don’t you grab the lotion bottle, fire up the COPS marathon, and pretend you’re the five foot five buzzcut douchbag with a tazer. Maybe a solid orgasm will calm you down enough to think like a human for 10 seconds.

    It’s a fairytale liberal-socialists tell their kids before bed!

    And your blatant Horatio Alger philosophy is any less fiction? Please. You’re in no position to be telling to anyone about the reality behind the facade. You’ve turned into a right wing psychotic reactionary (reaction being the key point there), and that’s exactly what they want. They want us polarized, to pick up a flag and attack the other citizens, because while we’re busy tossing shit and bricks at each other they make a mint from the conflict and you’re trained to revere it while it keeps you poor and angry and stupid.

    Luckily for the species your kind will be corrected out of existence. You’ll reject everything that can lead to your ultimate happiness and survival and you’ll die thinking of how awesome you are and the harm you do to the world and people around you will end.

    Ethics… I don’t believe anyone’s ethics could ever be “universally applicable.” (see communism or the nazis)

    Like the small percentage of drunks that can hold a conversation without slurring no matter how close to passed out they are, you’re apparently capable of stringing together words that sound like thought is occurring and yet manifestly it isn’t. You’re just some p-zed repeating what the idiot box has instructed.

    The basis of my ethic is that surviving is good, and that pleasure is good, conversely that pain is bad and death is bad. That ethic is universal to thinking rational humans. Of course in order to make you jump on the social grenade so some suit somewhere doesn’t have to and can sell your meat to the crows, you have to be convinced that pain and death are awesome.

    Idea: Go to the marines, plenty of tough guy death mongers there. You’ll fit right in with the other semi-sentient brain stems. You remind me of a Metalocalypse groupie.

    Standards; I think 90% of the time when people blame things on classism or racism it is a cop-out.

    Setting aside your loose use of the word “think” when “repeat” is a more accurate term, we come to the fact that this is EXACTLY what the mases MUST think to keep the ultra rich, ultra rich. They need people working and breeding their whole lives with nothing but more workers to show for it in order to continue their existence.

    The very LAST thing they want is people thinking about classism. They very LAST thing they want is people waking up to the fact that we have an aristocracy that is in BAD need of (non violent, simpy killing them won’t solve the problem) deposition. An aristocracy that is there by right of birth and nothing else. A right propped up and enforced by the military and the police.

    They have to get morons like you to violently oppose any discussion of the fact that class mobility is dead. We are born into our roles, period the end. So geared towards crushing class mobility is our society that lottery winners almost routinely self destruct, and yet dynasties of ultra rich families persist indefinitely.

    They HAVE to make you think that they are rich because they deserve it. They say ANY questioning of their wealth and how they got it and Do They Deserve It, is anti American, communist, weak, pansy pinko faggots ask those sorts of questions, right? Get back to work drone.

    With equal opportunity employment and everyone not wanting to seem racist, it is easier to get hired for a job if you aren’t “white.”

    And does it not occur to you drone that perhaps maybe being hired shouldn’t be your end all be all goal? Does it not dawn on you that you actually ASPIRE to be a human resource!? They want generation after generation of bright passionate young men to be convinced that 1. A job and a wife are the best things in life, and that 2. The system can never be fixed and any attempt to do so or discussion of how to do so is a result of weakness.

    I’m not classist or racist and I’m poor as shit.

    Of course you are. Your function is well established. “Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.” http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/ Check it out. Of course you’ll find someway to dismiss it so you can keep feeling special despite being about as unique as bubble wrap.

    You are a huge classist, and here’s my proof, do rich people attain wealth via merit? If you say no you just attacked The Company and puts us on the same side, if you say yes then you admit the upper classes are truly better, which makes you classist.

    People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking for scapegoats.

    Yeah because there’s no such thing as market forces. The great depression was caused by everyone just deciding to be lazy all at once. Your knowledge of sociology and economics is staggering. /sarcasm

    If you really believe “our laws” did this to “them” then you’re a nut-job.

    Yeah because gun law and drug laws really help matters. Even the cops know that drug law causes the drug problem. http://leap.cc/

    They did this to themselves.

    Yeah, they invented the drug war, they grow and refine poppies and coca in the urban jungle. /sarcasm

    The inability for the rank and file to make a connection between even obviously associated events will never fail to amaze me. It’s like the human race by and large actually lacks sufficient ram to fit the problem into their skull for processing.

    I feel like I’m trying to explain calculus to a roach. It doesn’t matter how good I am, the hardware is just not there on the other end.

    “How do you feel about prohibition?”
    Could you be a little more specific? Are you actually talking about alcohol in the 20’s?

    *facepalm* Nevermind, I have my answer.

    You keep throwing around these “what-if’s” like you have the secret answers to everything and it’s making you sound like the wizard of oz.

    I do have a whole host of answers. But you’ve been trained to not even seek them much less recognize them when you find them, and certainly not to come up with any on your own. The best future you can imagine for yourself looks like the playboy mansion. This is somewhat like the best future a mule can think of is reaching the carrot.

    How can you suggest that it could be funding related and then point to Carlin saying it’ll never change?

    I said What If it was funding related. How would we know? We have never funded education proportional the hyperbole of how important it is. If we retired just one one aircraft carrier or just one ballistic missile sub, and diverted the whole of the freed funding to education we’d suddenly have the most well funded education system on the planet by almost any measure.

    Public schools by and large look like rest stop bathrooms. Being a public teacher is like the worst post college job there is. We have never made being a teacher a job people strive for based on the cash. No wonder only idealists, pedophiles, and defectives go for it. You try to paint me as conflicted but you’re the one that speaks of taking responsibility and defends a Horatio Alger view of capitalism and then disregards the impact of fiscal lure.

    Can you imagine how demanding we could be of public school and public teachers if the base pay for being a public teacher was 100K per year? Education suffers brain drain because all the money is in the private sector.

    But for the record that’s all hypothetical, I don’t think dumping money into schools is the answer. My evidence for that is how badly the college system is failing and it’s funded through the roof. The whole concept of general education, of trying to teach children what they need to know directly is futile in an environment where the amount of required data is expanding exponentially while the learning curve is fixed.

    I pointed to Carlin to explain the current state of affairs, not to use that as an argument for doing nothing and patting myself on the back for being a badass because I’m unwilling to help anyone but myself like you’re apparently fond of. Things aren’t going to change until disruptions occur. And we can cause disruptions but not so long as self serving little tyrants like you who think that they are the incredible hulk and everyone else is just weak and stupid for not calling everyone who wants to help without being paid for it a faggot.

    It makes you sound like you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

    Your lack of intelligence could be causing that also, like a puppy listening to a lecture on astronomy. Don’t confuse your cognitive limits with the quality of the speaker’s position. If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.

    Your “New School” paper isn’t bad, it’s just unreasonable… It gets back to the same problems I already mentioned… There are no universally applicable ethics!

    Only because defectives like you have been conditioned against all probability to be self destructive. You actually think pain and death are good things. You think pain builds character and creates strength and you think death is a natural part of life to be accepted and revered. Well go die heroically for something, other people can better use your food and oxygen.

    Additionally you think they’re cool, you probably love violent movies like hostel and saw and you think killing is the best way to solve a difference. You probably think we should just nuke everyone that pisses us off.

    Well, I’m an agent of pleasure and life, so naturally my ethic is going to be different from yours. If you weren’t such a tool you’d realize that your love of death and pain is the result of careful intentional misassociation of your needs for pleasure and life being with irrationalities for the purposes of profit and power. (Again check out the happiness machine documentary.)

    We are both human. We both like things which feel good and we both want to stay alive, by and large. If that’s not a universal enough ethic to base an education on then your demands are unreasonable, not my approach.

    I think our understanding of the word soft is the same because I do feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones.

    *facepalm* How do I even respond to something so absurd? The depth and breadth of your ignorance of history is staggering. Do you have even the slightest idea of why life itself is so diverse? Of course not. You’re a homogeneous drone, a worker bee, asking you to understand strength in diversity is pointless by definition. Your very nature precludes an understanding of the concept.

    And about Stephen Hawking… I hope the sit and think comment was your attempt at humor.

    No it wasn’t. You fail to understand. Generally.

    How are people speaking about strength and speaking about the value of pain ironic? If you overcome pain you can get strength.

    Pointless. I’m now just responding to let you know that I’ve read your drivel and that I’m willing to publish it. The point is you value pain and death in and of themselves as ends instead of means. You also fail to understand that strength itself is a means to an end. You’re a self maintaining robot, and you’re shelved. You don’t understand the concept of purpose all you know is master wants you to be ready to serve at a moments notice so strength for you is a goal, not a tool.

    I do hate people for exploiting an opportunity because that just makes them lazy assholes.

    Lazy? What are you a survivalist? You have some nerve. People like you need to be air lifted to the middle of the Sahara desert naked and dropped off. If you have food in your bully and you’re not a subsistence farmer you’re lucky lucky man. Hell even if you ARE a subsistence farmer you’re lucky. If you know what it’s like to choose between flavors of ice cream you’re EXTREMELY lucky. God the irony.

    You’re like some 400 pound guy stuffing a pizza in his face talking shit about people needing to exercise more and starving to death in Africa because they need to get a job.

    And what is an asshole? Someone who is pointlessly mean? You just spent paragraphs explaining how being a mean ass prick is a good thing. You think you’re doing people a favor being a huge asshole to them since pain makes you stronger and weak people deserve nothing.

    Setting a camp fire is exploiting an opportunity. Talking on the Internet is exploiting an opportunity. You are the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever debated with, congratulations, that’s a distinction of note given my experience.

    I hate people for who they are on the inside.

    You hate people because of what you think they are on the inside because you’re a deluded callous shell of a man. You see yourself in everything and hate what you see. I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy. Prolonging your suffering is unethical and you’ve made it clear you’re completely unwilling and unable to improve the lives of others on principal.

    People need to take responsibility for their own choices. So you’re saying if some poor old lady drops a $50 bill you’d just take it because it’s fine… You’re just “exploiting an opportunity.”

    You’re the one devoid of compassion. You’re the one that thinks helping people is socialist and therefor bad. You’re the one that thinks people are ultimately responsible for everything that happens to them and that mercy is weakness. You’re far more likely to keep the money as punishment for her being careless. In fact I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money.

    And now we get back to the crazy conspiracy theories… So the magical “Company” will have to develop “disruptive technologies” that will let us “free ourselves?”

    Is that what passes for a rebuttal in your social circle? Setting aside that fact that “The Company” is just shorthand for church government and corporations, also setting aside the fact that you clearly misunderstood just about everything I’ve written at you, I’ll simply say it doesn’t matter what you think.

    What’s going to happen is inevitable. Lucky for you people like me will be in charge of it. And despite all your snapping and frothing and barking, someone will give you your shots, and see that you’re healthy and happy and loved.

    All I have to say is maybe smoking crack and watching The Matrix trilogy isn’t the best way to spend every second of the time you aren’t on here telling people how to live their lives and that you are right about everything.

    Again, just noting that I read it. I am right. And you simply saying I’m wrong isn’t a logical rebuttal. Thing is you just wish I was wrong because you have a fantasy about reality and the future that clearly isn’t going to happen and you’re bitter as hell about it. My condolences, seriously.

    The more you write the more loony I think you are.

    As above, you don’t “think.” Thought is the balancing of premises, a rational process. You don’t even test your individual premises for validity, much less cross them for consistency. You’ve chosen to be a beast of burden, and your philosophy reflects that choice. You’re product, and you’re proud of it and yet you wonder why your life is so painful and apparently meaningless.

    The happiness of those around you is confusing and frightening and you envy them and hate them for it. You want them to bash eachother with hammers because that’s what you would do if you were given an ounce of power.

    Your own existence confuses you because if everyone else was like you someone would have killed you long ago. You spew hate and rage in an attempt to get them to kill you to justify your dog eat dog brutalized vision of the world, but their stubborn refusal to thrash you just provides more proof that you’re out of place thus making you yet more bitter.

    It’s a sad self feeding cycle and I hope one day when your testosterone levels drop you’ll calm down enough to think it through and emerge a real compassionate person. But I suspect you won’t. Your attitude is too adaptive emotionally in a world of lies. I suspect you’ll be bitter and mean your whole life, resenting the very concept of kindness. Even when the opportunity to improve yourself will avail itself, you’ll run. Hurling an inky cloud of incoherent insults behind you as per usual.

    Don’t worry. People like me will make sure you have somewhere safe to run to and a porch to scream at kids and faggots from.

    “The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago.” Natural selection is no longer applicable because we don’t happen to live within the parameters of “nature” that that theory applies to.

    That’s exactly my point genius. Your fuck everyone attitude was great when we were shit tossing monkeys but maybe you didn’t notice, we paved everything now and the rules are different. Compassion, diversity, and kindness keep you alive. Your pathetic existence (and mine) is supported by the charity of thousands of people we’ll never meet.

    If nothing else, the tshirt applies. Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to kill them.

    Can you please stop using the phrase “The Company” because my stomach hurts from laughing so much every time you say it.

    I’m always fascinated by the phenomenon of someone explaining how they are laughing by way of attempted manipulation and shaming. If I actually made you laugh, that’s a good thing. See, unlike you, I want to improve the lives of people around me, not enrich myself at their expense.

    So if “The Company” makes you laugh, awesome. But of course that’s not what you want or expect. I am supposed to be upset by what you tell me you feel like? For one I highly doubt you ever laugh at anything in the sense of secure joviality, I’d say every time you laugh its more like a hyena or a nervous chimp, hiding a weakness, joining the tribe in mocking, asserting your position in the pack, etc.

    You remind me of the quote from con air, “Levity for that man actually hurts.”

    Ironically The Company engineers that emotional position, it makes you cake to control. It’s not a conspiracy, again, there is no head, its just the cumulative effects of self serving and compassionless decisions made by people like you, who happened to have been born into power and opportunity.

    And yes… I guess I’m probably more intense than angry.

    You’re also a pawn. And I’m happy to use you since clearly that behavior is in keeping with your philosophy. So unless your next reply really looks like it’s going to inspire a useful response from me, don’t expect it to be published. My honor is satisfied. If I publish your reply at all it will be probably heavily edited, just so you know. Unless of course you learn how to make a logical unemotional argument in the next 24 hours. Which I strongly doubt.

    And last but not least… The whole “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar. Was supposed to be a joke. Like something out of a Bogart movie. You need to stop taking everything so seriously and remember that some people like to have fun through humor instead of reading sci-fi novels and praying to lord xenu.

    Yes I realize now that you’re incapable of making peace with anyone, peace in your world is weakness. Well, when my kind come to dominate we’ll make sure that you have other puppies to play war with.

  • wtf?!

    I love how you start it off with name calling! Don’t get your panties in a bunch! And I don’t watch TV by the way.

    Sure… I’m a bigot… Why not. Despite you only knowing what you’ve read about me in these posts and your jumps in flawed logic I think you have every fact you need to make the proper assessment.

    I’m not saying people need to misuse language… I’m just saying if you did call me a cocksucker it wouldn’t bother me because that’s just like… your opinion man. You’re missing my point. If I say “faggot” to offend or if I say it with another purpose, it shouldn’t matter. Get over it!

    I like how you have stated that I seem intelligent and you can tell I care… but now you say I’m a “brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissist.” I like it! It really makes you seem reasonable. Remember… don’t let your enemies define you!

    I tried to debate you rationally but you have way too many conspiracy theories about “the man” and “the company” and stuff like that to be taken seriously… I truthfully thought we were getting somewhere.

    I know which side of the war Germany was on, I do understand Communism, and Kant was as much of a raving lunatic as you are. I hate Bush and Capitalism by the way. (Nugent’s pretty cool though.) I think the problem is that you “don’t even understand what [I'm] defending, much less attacking.” I couldn’t give less of a shit about getting rich or having money.

    Oh fuck… Freud… Really?! All he is, is an insecure, molested child with delusions of grandeur based on infantile concepts of sexuality. I watched your video… Blah blah blah… Consumerism and Capitalism brainwashing people. I get it. I don’t watch TV, I don’t pay attention to ad’s, I don’t care about name brands, etc. Don’t you realize you are the one being brainwashed with this propaganda?

    You are so intent on your message you don’t even pay attention to what I’m actually saying… You think there is your answer and the wrong answer. Why do you have to jump to me loving Capitalism just because I don’t like communism? Maybe one day you’ll realize the are more than two answers to some questions or problems. I really wish that someone else would comment on our conversation to get an outside perspective.

    At no point do I think you’re completely wrong about everything, you just take the “everyone is out to get us and there is some evil master plan at work” thing a little too seriously. And I don’t think I am special or unique… I don’t think anyone is and that’s why I commented on your post to begin with. You’re so busy being pretentious and trying to say you are special you’re missing everything that is outside your narrow world view. And I skimmed over the lawful path link… Sounds like a failed Sci-fi novel! It was found in an old printer for fuck’s sake! There is nothing proving it is real.

    NO… The “ultra rich” didn’t do anything to attain their wealth by merit… They are just as useless as the people on welfare. They are both a burden on our society. I hate “the company” just as much as you I’m sure… but when you say “the company” it just makes you sound a bit loony. I’m telling you… you keep jumping to these conclusions and now just because I insult your conspiracy theories you start name calling and attacking me like a child having a temper tantrum. But you can be willfully ignorant of what I’m trying to get across and put words in my mouth all you want I guess because this is your little fantasy world on the internet.

    No laws “cause’ those problems… they just make them worse. I’m all for fewer laws.

    “If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.”
    I think it’s funny you say this because you haven’t gone one paragraph without insulting or misinterpreting me.

    I don’t think I’m better than everyone else, I don’t think pain and death are good, just parts of life. And I don’t think anyone or anything is “cool” besides Clint Eastwood (kidding about the populate the world with his clones thing by the way). And SAW is totally just a gory version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” (And Hostel sucked.)

    I think saying that “feeling good and staying alive” are “ethics” is a bit of a jump. But it seems like you want to enter some eutopia where you never have to feel pain or suffer and you feel good all of the time and you live forever.

    Also I’m sure I know a lot more about Stephen Hawking, quantum mechanics, Brane Theory, and the universe in general than you. Stephen Hawking wasn’t paralysed until his 20’s and he was already a genius and outsmarting his professors.

    “I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy.”
    Thank you for your recommendation, but I am happy.

    Thank you for your “devoid of compassion” and the “I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money” comments. I do not think helping someone is Socialist nor do I think all aspects of Socialism are bad. And I have been in that situation, which I would hardly call a dilemma, and made sure the money was returned to it’s rightful owner.

    So to recap; I like Clint Eastwood, quantum physics, Stephen Hawking, and Ted Nugent.

    I hate Bush (both of them), Capitalism, Commercialism, Communism, almost every “-ism”, “The Company,” how you keep putting words in my mouth, and the movie Hostel.

    I hope you realize that we still aren’t that much off from each other on some things, just some of your stuff sounds a little too Sci-fi and a little too “conspiracy theory”.

  • wtf?!

    I love how you start it off with name calling! Don’t get your panties in a bunch! And I don’t watch TV by the way.

    Sure… I’m a bigot… Why not. Despite you only knowing what you’ve read about me in these posts and your jumps in flawed logic I think you have every fact you need to make the proper assessment.

    I’m not saying people need to misuse language… I’m just saying if you did call me a cocksucker it wouldn’t bother me because that’s just like… your opinion man. You’re missing my point. If I say “faggot” to offend or if I say it with another purpose, it shouldn’t matter. Get over it!

    I like how you have stated that I seem intelligent and you can tell I care… but now you say I’m a “brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissist.” I like it! It really makes you seem reasonable. Remember… don’t let your enemies define you!

    I tried to debate you rationally but you have way too many conspiracy theories about “the man” and “the company” and stuff like that to be taken seriously… I truthfully thought we were getting somewhere.

    I know which side of the war Germany was on, I do understand Communism, and Kant was as much of a raving lunatic as you are. I hate Bush and Capitalism by the way. (Nugent’s pretty cool though.) I think the problem is that you “don’t even understand what [I'm] defending, much less attacking.” I couldn’t give less of a shit about getting rich or having money.

    Oh fuck… Freud… Really?! All he is, is an insecure, molested child with delusions of grandeur based on infantile concepts of sexuality. I watched your video… Blah blah blah… Consumerism and Capitalism brainwashing people. I get it. I don’t watch TV, I don’t pay attention to ad’s, I don’t care about name brands, etc. Don’t you realize you are the one being brainwashed with this propaganda?

    You are so intent on your message you don’t even pay attention to what I’m actually saying… You think there is your answer and the wrong answer. Why do you have to jump to me loving Capitalism just because I don’t like communism? Maybe one day you’ll realize the are more than two answers to some questions or problems. I really wish that someone else would comment on our conversation to get an outside perspective.

    At no point do I think you’re completely wrong about everything, you just take the “everyone is out to get us and there is some evil master plan at work” thing a little too seriously. And I don’t think I am special or unique… I don’t think anyone is and that’s why I commented on your post to begin with. You’re so busy being pretentious and trying to say you are special you’re missing everything that is outside your narrow world view. And I skimmed over the lawful path link… Sounds like a failed Sci-fi novel! It was found in an old printer for fuck’s sake! There is nothing proving it is real.

    NO… The “ultra rich” didn’t do anything to attain their wealth by merit… They are just as useless as the people on welfare. They are both a burden on our society. I hate “the company” just as much as you I’m sure… but when you say “the company” it just makes you sound a bit loony. I’m telling you… you keep jumping to these conclusions and now just because I insult your conspiracy theories you start name calling and attacking me like a child having a temper tantrum. But you can be willfully ignorant of what I’m trying to get across and put words in my mouth all you want I guess because this is your little fantasy world on the internet.

    No laws “cause’ those problems… they just make them worse. I’m all for fewer laws.

    “If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.”
    I think it’s funny you say this because you haven’t gone one paragraph without insulting or misinterpreting me.

    I don’t think I’m better than everyone else, I don’t think pain and death are good, just parts of life. And I don’t think anyone or anything is “cool” besides Clint Eastwood (kidding about the populate the world with his clones thing by the way). And SAW is totally just a gory version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” (And Hostel sucked.)

    I think saying that “feeling good and staying alive” are “ethics” is a bit of a jump. But it seems like you want to enter some eutopia where you never have to feel pain or suffer and you feel good all of the time and you live forever.

    Also I’m sure I know a lot more about Stephen Hawking, quantum mechanics, Brane Theory, and the universe in general than you. Stephen Hawking wasn’t paralysed until his 20’s and he was already a genius and outsmarting his professors.

    “I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy.”
    Thank you for your recommendation, but I am happy.

    Thank you for your “devoid of compassion” and the “I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money” comments. I do not think helping someone is Socialist nor do I think all aspects of Socialism are bad. And I have been in that situation, which I would hardly call a dilemma, and made sure the money was returned to it’s rightful owner.

    So to recap; I like Clint Eastwood, quantum physics, Stephen Hawking, and Ted Nugent.

    I hate Bush (both of them), Capitalism, Commercialism, Communism, almost every “-ism”, “The Company,” how you keep putting words in my mouth, and the movie Hostel.

    I hope you realize that we still aren’t that much off from each other on some things, just some of your stuff sounds a little too Sci-fi and a little too “conspiracy theory”.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    Well, I’m glad you made some effort to carry a point. Hence the unedited publish.

    I love how you start it off with name calling!

    I wonder what happens in your head when you type that. Do you actually think anyone is going to see me as the irrational aggressor? I’m thinking the guy that screamed faggot is going get that award for this debate, no question.

    Don’t get your panties in a bunch!

    Oh noes! You question my gender role! I had best submit to your idea of what it is to be a man rapidly lest I prove myself to be feminine!

    Please.

    Let’s remember you’re the one that has a problem with gay people. Don’t project your gender insecurities onto me friend.

    And I don’t watch TV by the way.

    I don’t believe that for a nanosecond, but it’s impossible to prove.

    Sure… I’m a bigot… Why not. Despite you only knowing what you’ve read about me in these posts and your jumps in flawed logic I think you have every fact you need to make the proper assessment.

    Yeah because calling everyone a faggot and displaying serious gender insecurity doesn’t constitute evidence of bigotry. :P

    Again, is that actually a cunning plan in your mind?

    I’m not saying people need to misuse language… I’m just saying if you did call me a cocksucker it wouldn’t bother me because that’s just like… your opinion man.

    My hairy ass. You’d pick a fight promptly (assuming my size didn’t check your aggression). Lest your heterosexuality and the length of your penis should come into question.

    You’re missing my point. If I say “faggot” to offend or if I say it with another purpose, it shouldn’t matter. Get over it!

    So you’re arguing that your own words should be treated as meaningless? I just felt a stab of genuine pity for you. I guess that confirms what I said before about your assessment of your own worth.

    I like how you have stated that I seem intelligent and you can tell I care… but now you say I’m a “brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissist.” I like it!

    Note that the first part is a statement of appearance, and the latter is a statement of actuality. It’s like magic, it only LOOKS like the lady is being sawed in half.

    It really makes you seem reasonable.

    Again, how I seem isn’t as much an issue for me as how I am. And as far as I know my views are internally consistent and consistent with reality at large. Of course one can’t ever know for sure, but one can try to approach knowing, which is where this blog comes in.

    Remember… don’t let your enemies define you!

    If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you. Had your response been pure frothing idiocy I’d have deleted it. Indeed your tone this time is far more coherent and adult. Of course this is a relative term. My point being that I’ve influenced your position in this instance, so it seems strange to try and recycle my admonition in that way.

    I tried to debate you rationally but you have way too many conspiracy theories about “the man” and “the company” and stuff like that to be taken seriously… I truthfully thought we were getting somewhere.

    I guess we’re using a a loose definition of the word “rationally” today. And just what conspiracy theory have I advocated again? As I said The Company is just short hand for the government the church and the corporations. They have clearly defined interests and goals. Find an assertion I’ve made that’s faulty and quote me. I’m happy to defend it more thoroughly.

    I know which side of the war Germany was on, I do understand Communism,

    Simply saying that proves nothing. What’s the difference between socialism and communism for example? 5$ says you have to look it up.

    and Kant was as much of a raving lunatic as you are.

    Wow! Thanks! You just compared me to the author of Critique of Pure Reason. Sadly the compliment is meaningless because you probably base your position on what his picture looks like or far more likely you simply had never heard of him until me and thus he must suck since I introduced the name into your world. Further if you know as much about physics as you claim to you probably have a disdain for philosophy. (I tend to agree. It’s seems more biographical than anything else.)

    I hate Bush and Capitalism by the way. (Nugent’s pretty cool though.)

    Nugent’s an ignorant caveman and I wish he’d get out of the gun debate. People like him are part of why we still have such fervent gun control fanatics. If I thought gun rights meant mainly tools like him packing I’d be thinking about laws too.

    I think the problem is that you “don’t even understand what [I'm] defending, much less attacking.”

    That’s because you’re all smoke. You haven’t made many claims beyond personal attacks on me and cliche anecdotes on toughness and education. Beyond that you keep “kidding” and the like, in addition to disregarding common definitions, so what you do say I can’t take seriously.

    I couldn’t give less of a shit about getting rich or having money.

    Please. Do you think anyone believes that? You’re just struggling to maintain what you think is your image of jaded unique coolness. You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!”

    Oh fuck… Freud… Really?! All he is, is an insecure, molested child with delusions of grandeur based on infantile concepts of sexuality.

    Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance so throughly. He effectively invented psychology. Nuff said. His obsession with sex is irrelevant to a mature mind. To claim he’s worthless because he’s wrong about sex is to claim newton was a moron because he got gravity wrong. See below about the spectrum of wrongness.

    I watched your video… Blah blah blah… Consumerism and Capitalism brainwashing people. I get it.

    No you don’t and you’re about to prove it.

    I don’t watch TV, I don’t pay attention to ad’s, I don’t care about name brands, etc.

    See? If you had an ounce of reading under your belt you’d realize that not paying attention to something makes it MORE effective when we’re talking about the manipulation of the unconscious. You may understand the p-brane but you have a lot to learn about the brain.

    The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche? Well gosh aren’t you just the strongest human imaginable.

    Don’t you realize you are the one being brainwashed with this propaganda?

    And just who brain washed me and what are they getting out of it? What propaganda am I promoting? Again, why don’t you stop saying you’re right and do something to defend it. Again, quote me making a flawed assertion and I’ll either accept your evidence of it being flawed when you present it or defend my claim if the burden of proof is mine. Until then, your whole argument is about as developed as an infantile “nuh uhhh.”

    You are so intent on your message you don’t even pay attention to what I’m actually saying…

    That’s because you’re not saying anything unique and for reason above when you speak I am forced to disregard it. You’re rehashing very old very bad ideas, very badly. Ideas that are daily promoted on television to keep people like you harmless to the rich.

    You think there is your answer and the wrong answer.

    Oh that old saw, that because I think I’m right I must therefor be wrong. How dare I stand behind my assertions? Whence comes my nerve? Logic and evidence. Ask yourself how I am Supposed to feel if I Were right? Your pathetic attack is meaningless because it applies to every claim, both right and wrong.

    I say four is the sum of two and two, and you criticize me for being apparently closed to new ideas. Some issues are settled. Sometimes controversy persists merely because of memetic infection. A grand example is the notion that an open mind cannot be skeptical, that it cannot by definition reject ideas out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You further by implication reject the notion that my exposure to a debate can’t be complete and that my solution, barring the creation of new data, is closed to further analysis because a solid conclusion has been reached in which case the position justifiably becomes composed of two sets, my answers and wrong answers.

    Further still, there are degrees of wrongness. I don’t need to know everything about a truth to be able to reject an obvious falsehood. A great essay on this was written by Asimov. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

    I don’t expect you personally to understand any of that. I’m noting it for debate purposes.

    Why do you have to jump to me loving Capitalism just because I don’t like communism?

    Because you espouse by implication every relevant broken ethic, and it’s the logical conclusion of your previous statements. Your position on toughness alone demands respect for the American capitalist party line, in addition to your fervent defense of the status quo. You are either effectively in favor of capitalism or your ideology is fundamentally conflicted.

    It’s like saying you’re anti-liberal but going on to defend their side on every major issue. Which people often do in an effort to get the best of both worlds by whatever criteria satisfies the term best in their context. Given your stance on the invalidity of consistent definitions, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’d completely act and think like a capitalist but claim you aren’t one. I suppose you have a special definition for capitalism just like your apparently non-bigoted gay-friendly version of faggot?

    Maybe one day you’ll realize the are more than two answers to some questions or problems.

    It’s not a question of numbers it’s a question of spectrum. Sure, given certain premises there are in theory solidly right and wrong answers, the potentiality for a single most correct claim, but by and large one struggles not to be absolutely right but more right.

    Again, just because I’m not absolutely right doesn’t mean I am logically required to accept all other meaningless drivel as equal to my own position. It’s like asking what’s in my backpack. You say perhaps a book, and johnny says perhaps a fist sized fusion reactor. Despite a fist sized fusion reactor being possible its hardly likely and can be rejected. Just because neither of you can be sure does not mean your answers are of equal value. So quit trying to paint my answers as wrong simply because they may not be unequivocally right.

    I really wish that someone else would comment on our conversation to get an outside perspective.

    Perhaps my readers are enjoying my handling of you? Of course until they speak up we’ll never know and thus we, like the backpack speculators, can inject whatever we want onto their hypothetical minds.

    At no point do I think you’re completely wrong about everything, you just take the “everyone is out to get us and there is some evil master plan at work” thing a little too seriously.

    I have said explicitly time and again that I do not believe our social problems are the work of a single masterful top down conspiracy, I’m simply saying there is a single cumulative effect and social systems can be understood AS IF there were a conspiracy. Again, for the cheap seats, “The Company” is just short hand for the system, specifically church, government, and corporations. Notice I’m speaking generally, that’s intentional. I’m talking about macroscopic effects here.

    Again, there is a spectrum to correctness, saying that governments, churches, and corporations act in a manner which collectively and deceptively oppresses the average human does not mean there are secret Illuminati lizard aliens putting mind control microbes in the tap water. Though I’m quick to add if any of these groups got hold of mind control microbes they would use them immediately and without hesitation for the same reason they developed the bomb. For fear of someone else doing it first.

    As for taking their mechanisms of control seriously, you’re damn right I take them seriously! Just look at their behavior! Look at Saudi Arabia, Monsanto, and the Catholic church. Are their abuses of humanity seriously to be scoffed off as trivial? What IS worth taking seriously in your world if not that shit?

    And I don’t think I am special or unique… I don’t think anyone is and that’s why I commented on your post to begin with.

    And that’s my point. You project your insecurities about being nothing onto everyone else. Pardon me but I know I have something to offer. I’m sorry if you feel you don’t. I really am. If you’d just calm down for 40 seconds and look at yourself rationally you could probably either A. Find something you can offer, or B. Begin turning yourself into something that has something to offer. Unless of course you consider trolling to be constructive, which actually can be defended, I mean look at the wonderful content you’ve inspired here.

    But of course in your world any admittance of absence of ability not coupled with a claim of it’s triviality is tantamount to an admission of weakness. Put simply you think you’re good at everything that matters, and if you’re not good at anything then obviously nothing matters. Your emotive weight assigments are based on your ability, not the other way around. It’s a form of selection bias I think, I can’t recall the name, it’s when a person disregards the importance of an area of weakness. Religious people routinely do this to dismiss the sciences.

    Like me and Nascar, or Pokemon. I know nothing about Nascar so I’m inclined to dismiss it’s importance. Now that can be the result of actual triviality, like it actually is pointless so I fail to learn about it. On the other hand I could be disregarding it because I know nothing about it. I happen to have a driving phobia so I can’t say with 100% clarity which is the case.

    My point is specialness exists. It’s just not up to us to say with conviction if we are or not. The accuracy of my opinion of my own specialness is irrelevant. What matters in any practical way is how that opinion effects my actions. In this context how it effects my writing.

    I believe I am special and I’m sorry that upsets you or anyone else. But I won’t fight it, or lie about it, until I have good reason. And your reasons, implied as they are, are simply not good enough. I see no value in intentionally attempting to destroy my own self esteem just because you find me to be arrogant and then state that a lack of arrogance is a good thing sufficient to destroy myself.

    Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.

    You’re so busy being pretentious and trying to say you are special you’re missing everything that is outside your narrow world view.

    You’re the one that is making my self esteem an issue. You’re the one making this personal and calling names and making value judgments. I’m simply refuting them and making some of my own to expose where your flawed conclusions likely come from. You seem to think you’re the first person to attack me in this way, I assure you, you are not. Whatever I am capable of learning from this mode of attack I have probably already learned it.

    That said, I am evolving. My work from even a year ago in some ways is significantly different than it is today. You seem to think I’m made of steel just because I’m not shattering under your blows like a giant cookie.

    In short. Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct? What if your claims I’ve already heard, considered carefully, found to be wanting, and dismissed? Would that not look exactly like unjustified arrogance? I’m not going to hold my hat in my hand and run off at the mouth with disclaimers and qualifier just to avoid scorn. I don’t have time for that. And I wouldn’t even if I did have time.

    You confuse memory for flippancy.

    So test me. Pick one claim. Quote me, state your objections, and I’ll respond appropriately.

    And I skimmed over the lawful path link… Sounds like a failed Sci-fi novel! It was found in an old printer for fuck’s sake! There is nothing proving it is real.

    You seem to be obsessed with what I called the labcoat effect but which is generally known as the argument from authority.

    Who cares if it came out of a ham sandwich? Or a briefcase left on a subway? That doesn’t change the ontological validity of the claim.

    Granted in and of itself it proves nothing. I personally find the level of detail compelling, though I am not sufficiently versed in economics or electronics to speak to those portion’s validity, however I am quite certain that kind of control is possible. I’ve seen it and even used crude version of it. I got myself elected to body president at my college. I’ve also more tellingly avoided problems that have consumed everyone around me and large portions of the populace. Now I realize my entire life is nothing, statically speaking, I am not a representative sample of crowd control obviously, I’m simply stating one reason why I have conviction that these methods are possible, even inevitable.

    I see subtle mechanisms of control throughout society. I study sociology and psychology. I have a gift for macroscopic thinking. Again back to being special, if you want to refute that claim on the grounds that it’s bad manners be my guest.

    If you want to disregard even the possibility that this form of control exists, again, be my guest. I would say it explains a great deal about why your views are so, widespread.

    NO… The “ultra rich” didn’t do anything to attain their wealth by merit… They are just as useless as the people on welfare. They are both a burden on our society. I hate “the company” just as much as you I’m sure…

    Then you are in conflict with your claims of education. You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success. The logical equivalent is that social ascendancy is the result of personal supremacy.

    If you believe that then why are you so upset with low standards? If you grant that wealth is attained via not merit, what is it attained by? The only thing left would seem to be luck, and if social prosperity is only a matter of luck, then what does it matter what education does? Why should you care if they pass out diplomas on the first day and send everyone home?

    but when you say “the company” it just makes you sound a bit loony.

    And the big crunch and dark energy sound a little silly too, you’re the one that’s about to bring up the p-brane and string madness. Again, I don’t care about the fashion, I’m not trying to market myself here. I’m simply putting my opinion out there in the most pure form. I leave it to others to sell the ideas if the ideas are worth selling. We’d need to go into a good bit of detail about me personally to really explain why I don’t care how loony I sound and I suspect no one cares.

    But one solid reason not to do with me personally is my conclusion that there is no polite way to say some of these things. Some medicine can’t be hidden in the food.

    I’m telling you… you keep jumping to these conclusions and now just because I insult your conspiracy theories you start name calling and attacking me like a child having a temper tantrum. But you can be willfully ignorant of what I’m trying to get across and put words in my mouth all you want I guess because this is your little fantasy world on the internet.

    See below about insults.

    No laws “cause’ those problems… they just make them worse. I’m all for fewer laws.

    You need to look into the history of the drug war.

    Drug law for the most part caused the drug problem in America.

    Rampant addiction is not a problem in and of itself, just look at heroin maintenance therapy. It’s a plant product, it could be as cheap as vanilla or even imitation vanilla when you look at the synthetic opioids. The current climate of drug law is what causes the notion that being addicted is a problem in and of itself, and so long as it is viewed as such its easy to look at the 10s and 20s and say “Woah! Addiction was a huge problem before the drug war, that’s why we need drug law.” But that claim is intellectually bankrupt when you realize that 99% of the horror of the drug war is a direct reaction to drug law enforcement.

    Addiction is pandemic in society. The drug war arbitrarily chooses when to persecute those addicted. I am addicted to caffeine, my mother is addicted to asthma medication, millions are legally addicted to Valium, some people are addicted to activities. Hell in a very real way people are addicted to food, quite separate from the need for nourishment. Addiction itself is made a problem only to provide an excuse to perpetuate profitable activities. The drug war provides power and money to those that already have them. All three branches of The Company profit from it. Governments use it as a foot in the door and excuse to destroy enemies. Churches use it to grab minds at their weakest point, there is a good deal of controversy over the religious connotations to 12 step programs. Corporations make a killing selling equipment and services to anti drug efforts. The drug testing industry alone is worth 2 billion. How much is the caffeine testing industry worth?

    Beyond that there is the logical trap, a law defines a crime. Until an act is outlawed it is not a crime, and therefor in some ways not a problem.

    And all that is just one example. There are HORDES of problems in society caused by solutions in order to sell solutions. No corporation for example can solve a problem unless it exists, therefor any corporation setup to solve a problem instantly has a conflict of interest to deal with since if it accomplished its goal it would cease to exist. My following example should explain why its very likely that the more successful a corporation is the more likely it will attempt to suppress cures in an effort to sell palliatives. One example is called the tragedy of the commons. Check it out.

    Personal note: I repaired computers for a living and I could have easily created problems to profit from solving them. I could easily have left back doors open or implanted slow acting pathogens to ensure that my clients would need me again in 6 months time.

    The fact that I did NOT engage in this behavior is contributory to why I no longer have any clients. It’s a kind of economic, game theory, or public good problem. The fact is reality produces situations where those who act in the worst interests of the general good are rewarded the most and vice versa.

    This leads to, again a non-conspiratorial, yet collective effect where in the good guy is smashed by bad guys subtly acting collectively to destroy competition. Do I think that the other computer repair people had a meeting and drove me out of business? Of course not. But the fact remains, if I had been more like them, more evil, I’d have made a lot more money.

    And again this advantage is granted to incompetence also. They may not even be aware. But those that are and act on it, will make more money than those that aren’t, and both make more money than people like me who are aware and actively refuse.

    In this way, those most likely to act in this way rise to the top. Do you understand?

    “If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.”
    I think it’s funny you say this because you haven’t gone one paragraph without insulting or misinterpreting me.

    A misinterpretation (if present) is an error I couldn’t have helped. It is not in the same class at all as an insult. And I focused on insulting you on purpose. Read the first three sentences of my last reply. It worked too. Look how much more rational you are this time. For the record one can use evil super powers for good. :)

    I don’t think I’m better than everyone else, I don’t think pain and death are good, just parts of life.

    What if you are better? And perhaps I can convince you then they are not needed parts of life. If we agree on that premise then we should be able to find common ground.

    And I don’t think anyone or anything is “cool” besides Clint Eastwood (kidding about the populate the world with his clones thing by the way).

    Heh, good to hear it. But I’ve heard worse with what I assumed was 100% sincerity.

    And SAW is totally just a gory version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” (And Hostel sucked.)

    LMAO, “Teacher says, every time a bell rings some guys cuts off his foot.” Grats you’re now permanently a part of my memory. I liked hostel in the sense that it got people thinking about how the power of money really needs checks and balances. But yeah I agree with you. That was clearly not the intention.

    I think saying that “feeling good and staying alive” are “ethics” is a bit of a jump.

    I was unclear. I’m saying they are premises on which ethics are built. They are axiomatic goals that one can use to judge the value of a given ethic. That which most contributes to life and happiness is most good. Once that’s established the rest is just number crunching.

    But it seems like you want to enter some eutopia (sic) where you never have to feel pain or suffer and you feel good all of the time and you live forever.

    Correct. Though to be more specific I want to (via informed volition of course) turn the world into such, but whatever, you get the idea.

    Also I’m sure I know a lot more about Stephen Hawking, quantum mechanics, Brane Theory, and the universe in general than you.

    That’s entirely possible. And I’m glad to see some unabashed self love sticking out. I’m perfectly willing to learn. I have an essay on quantum mechanics you might like to shred then. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=726

    Stephen Hawking wasn’t paralysed (sic) until his 20’s and he was already a genius and outsmarting his professors.

    I was aware of that but my position stands. To say that he would have achieved the same amount had he been free to roam is absurd to me, but again, without an alternate universe to observe, there’s no proving it.

    “I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy.”
    Thank you for your recommendation, but I am happy.

    Well that’s great then. :)

    Thank you for your “devoid of compassion” and the “I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money” comments.

    You’re welcome. Personally I think you’re back tracking because I’ve put you in a position where you win by doing so. But ultimately it doesn’t matter.

    I do not think helping someone is Socialist nor do I think all aspects of Socialism are bad.

    Again, in light of that you might want to reexamine your statements on education.

    And I have been in that situation, which I would hardly call a dilemma, and made sure the money was returned to it’s rightful owner.

    Well excellent. Also, we are in parity, if your claim is truthful, and only you know.

    So to recap; I like Clint Eastwood, quantum physics, Stephen Hawking, and Ted Nugent.

    Which interpretation do you favor? Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.

    I hate Bush (both of them), Capitalism, Commercialism, Communism, almost every “-ism”, “The Company,” how you keep putting words in my mouth, and the movie Hostel.

    Like The Company, there is no conspiracy, you’re just not being clear enough for me. Though you may be being clear enough for others. *shrugs*

    I hope you realize that we still aren’t that much off from each other on some things, just some of your stuff sounds a little too Sci-fi and a little too “conspiracy theory”.

    I do. Again, like above, I’m not concerned with how my stuff sounds.

  • wtf?!

    I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

    Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that? And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

    I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

    I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive. And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad. I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept. You can’t have good without bad. You can’t have life without death.

    “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
    Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

    Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic. And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

    So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

    “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
    Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

    “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
    Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV. I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

    When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

    “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
    A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

    “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
    Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to. You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else. And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

    “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
    No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

    I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

    “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
    You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

  • wtf?!

    I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

    Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that? And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

    I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

    I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive. And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad. I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept. You can’t have good without bad. You can’t have life without death.

    “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
    Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

    Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic. And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

    So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

    “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
    Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

    “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
    Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV. I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

    When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

    “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
    A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

    “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
    Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to. You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else. And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

    “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
    No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

    I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

    “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
    You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

  • Anonymous

    I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

    Fair enough. I feel no pressing need to play he said she said, but in the interests of intellectual integrity I’ll simply say I think you are creatively revising your previous statements to mask their original meaning and intent because I’ve shown your original positions to be either false or unflattering or both. But either way it doesn’t matter and I’m content to make no further mention of it and accept your positions on current face value.

    Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that?

    Because the nature of my attack was to place you in the context of the ultra common and the common watch TV religiously (that word is apt for numerous reasons). You are adversarial, you’ve already established yourself as a person who’s defined himself as the opposition of his enemies, thus if I say you watch TV you could be wounded by that if it’s true so you feel they need to “prove” me wrong and say you don’t watch TV. Those are all just hypothetical reasons why you might lie about watching TV to answer your question. Again, it’s not provable.

    And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

    I can believe honesty is an ethic for you, but sometimes the pain of wounding your own integrity is less than the pain of revealing an embarrassing truth. Even I have things I’ll lie about, Fortunately for me I’ve not been pressed to that point anywhere on this blog, but if I had I’d hardly say so. I suspect you realize that protesting honesty is exactly what a liar and a non liar would do, so once again, it doesn’t matter either way. I’m willing to take you at your word. If you don’t watch TV, fine. So long as you act like a commoner I’ll treat you like one. I’m quick to add your behavior is consistently improving and I’m more likely to take you seriously now, though factually my opinion on your positions won’t change until you present new (to me) material. A fact is a fact no matter how it’s delivered.

    I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

    *shrugs* Again, benefit of the doubt.

    I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive.

    “Little” being the operative word. It all depends on what is said and the context. Sentiments like the ones you expressed are routinely used to quash needed, even urgent, complaint. You can trivialize anything, that doesn’t mean it’s actually trivial.

    And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad.

    We’ll get to a more complete answer to this in a minute. That doesn’t hold given your expressed attitude on the quality of being special.

    I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept.

    Ahh, a membership card. If I don’t think like you I can’t possible understand you because if I understood I’d agree? That’s a fallacy and you know it. You’re attempting to shame me again. Like I’m weak for wanting to improve quality of life.

    Once again, do not project your limitations onto reality. Just because you can’t quickly and intuitively imagine a way out of the hedonic pain trap treadmill that constitutes the bulk of the (current) human condition without creating some sort of mindless drooling dystopian nightmare, does not mean no such satisfactory exit exists. And it certainly does not mean I am weak and a failure as a human because I seek it.

    If you want to take the Orwell/Huxley view of pain and suffering, be my guest. In a way that will serve you well because when a solution is found and implemented you’ll be gloriously surprised and of course no one will be spiteful enough to harm you for your incorrectness. Of course the down side is that because of your stubborn rejection of the possibility you won’t be contributing to it’s development.

    http://www.gradients.com/
    http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/

    Your entire position on this subject is thoroughly crushed in the above two links. You position exists because a huge part of the human mind’s ability to tolerate intractable pain is the recognition of or faith in it’s intractability. Pain that could be easily cured, but isn’t, is a higher order of pain. Example: Starving to death in a steel box. vs. Starving to death in a steel box with a 4 course dinner behind unbreakable glass in plain view. which is worse? Why?

    http://blog.ted.com/2006/09/happiness_exper.php

    Because in order for us to tolerate a truly shitty event we must know for a fact first that we can’t change it or we must not be aware of an alternative (qualitatively these are equal).

    My imagination is not so limited, and this may not be because I’m awesome, it could just be because of what I’ve read coupled with my faith in human ingenuity. I simultaneous recognize what can be done and believe with every fiber of my being that not only can it be done, it will be done. Not only do I see the meal behind the glass, I’m confident I’ll be able to shatter said glass shortly.

    You can’t have good without bad.

    Incorrect. Pain and pleasure are separate experiential spectra. Examples: If pain and pleasure are points on a single scale then how can happiness and sadness be experienced simultaneously? Imagine being told your loved one died in a car wreck the very same instant your lottery winning number was announced. Substitute whatever events you like (and dislike), death and money may be bad examples for you personally but you should get my point.

    Second example: If pleasure and pain are the same spectrum then what is boredom? Pain and pleasure are separate values. You can cognitively add them to arrive at a total value, sure. But that’s not how we experience them directly. That is proven by neurology. Different areas of the brain handle different styles of input and experience.

    You can’t have life without death.

    You absolutely can. On the subjective level ask any child how they feel about their favorite stuffed animal. Or examine tribal religions and their perception of “the earth” as a living thing. Rocks, streams, the sun, etc.

    On a logical level at what point does life begin? Is fire alive? Are viruses? How can I be alive if every part of me is lifeless? Are protons and the like alive? I am made of protons etc. Am I even still me when every particle of my body has been replaced? (Ship of Theseus) Are twins the same person? Would clones be? How about perfect copies? What if I divided like a cell? Which one is the original?

    You just haven’t had cause or time to sit and think these things through. I have. Strength through diversity. :)

    “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
    Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

    Again, just because you trivialize something doesn’t mean it is actually trivial. I know you wish to disregard everything you don’t care about as objectively worthless, that’s only human, and in so doing reduce the value of your own limitations, but these are real and serious issues that humanity is going to be forced to deal with, if it isn’t being forced right now. If you want to take a back seat and just not think about it, fine. Go read some other blog. Obviously I have a different opinion.

    Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic.

    It seems in your world a person must be utterly perfect in all ways before they can be thought of as having something to contribute. Tesla hated human hair and was a life long celibate, I guess we should all chuck our electric motors and radio yeah? Kant was a genius AND a lunatic. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The founding fathers were racist sexist classicists, does that make the constitution a worthless document?

    And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

    Fair enough. You seemed to indicate you’re trained in the physical sciences, those that are, typically disdain philosophy as a non-science. If you don’t, cool. I do, in the sense that modern education is biographical and sycophantic, but the concepts of philosophy and the purpose of the study itself is of inestimable value.

    So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

    Logic and ethics. It’s a huge issue. Put simply, I am against gun control law because it does more harm than good and because we aren’t supposed to have it anyway. I have a concealed deadly weapons license and carry a GLOCK 26. (The caps are correct spelling, I think it looks stupid but what can I do.) I prevented a fight with a bbgun as a kid, and the concept stuck. My ability to harm him resulted in no one being harmed. The left opposes gun freedom out of pride and habit. There is no cohesive logic behind it.

    “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
    Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

    This goes back to the very beginning, I think you’re back pedaling, but that’s fine, evolution happens. And regardless of what you thought before, this is what you are claiming now, and we agree. So there’s no point. I have no interest in vengeance.

    “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
    Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV.

    Fair enough and true, but just because you don’t watch TV at home doesn’t mean you don’t watch TV. You could work with a TV, or you could listen to the radio on the way to work or you could read magazines, etc etc. Still, your point holds, that figure takes these things into account. You probably do see less.

    I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

    We seem to have a good bit in common. I also do not drive, and not driving has ethical advantages I’ve now embraced, but this was not my choice. I have a phobia.

    When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

    Again, if that’s your position now, then we agree.

    “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
    A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

    I don’t care about my status in this regard, if I am arrogant and egotistical, so be it. I’ll add it to white and tall as personal stats.

    “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
    Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to.

    Even if true you just made a tiny sample. College might be a booming business in the states but globally college attendance is rare. Fortunately I don’t care about what group you try and squeeze me into.

    You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else.

    If you’re blind to my ability and what I have to offer, so be it, you can go have this conversation with one of the billions of other mes. If I’m so common why spend hours debating me? Your behavior doesn’t match your rhetoric. Again, what if I am better? What if I am special? In your world apparently that’s not possible. Not Even Possible. This to me screams “well trained” and is why I see you as a commoner. To me you’re just another pawn screaming at me for daring not to stand in line.

    And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

    That’s like calling me chicken trying to get me to obey. Look at the logical equivalent of your statement “if you were really special you’d just do as your told like everyone else, you’d do nothing just like me.” It makes zero sense. I’m sorry you’ve given up, but I understand why and I don’t blame you.

    Besides you’re in no position to judge me, not because you have no right, but because you don’t have enough data.

    You didn’t even know my stance on guns, obviously you’ve read about 2% of my work at best. I routinely make my stance on law and freedom clear. My position on drugs and guns alone plants me in the in the extreme minority.

    “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
    No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

    I’ll resist the urge to copy and paste your previous words and accuse you of trolling. Your desire to change the perception of your past position is a victory in and of itself. If this is what you now claim, we agree. There is a difference between revising your position based on new evidence and changing it to suit the moment.

    I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

    Obviously you didn’t even read the links I gave you. This whole blog is “what I’m suggesting.” I’m not about to repeat the sum of my philosophy here just because you can’t be bothered to follow a link. You want me to believe I’m worthless and that you don’t care what I have to say anyway, so why should I bother?

    “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
    You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

    Why am I not shocked that you would rather invent an elaborate and contradictorily byzantine solution than simply admit that something is beyond the scope of your ability? Science is the process of understanding what is manifest so that one can predict events. Science is NOT about determining WHY events manifest or what system is at work behind manifestation, it is a record keeping and prediction system ONLY.

    Godel has shown that any complete system, will contain statements that are both true and unprovable. Whatever the hidden variable is, a representation of it I suspect would be such a statement.

    There are questions that transcend science and religion, and there are questions that defeat them both, questions that are not tricks. This is such a question. Quantum weirdness and the resulting nonsensical (the idea of a superposed state is as absurd as saying reality ceases to exist when you close your eyes) explanations are consequences of attempting to deduce or prove the unprovable.

    If you attempt to debate me on QM here I’ll not publish it, go find my post on quantum mechanics and post there.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

    Fair enough. I feel no pressing need to play he said she said, but in the interests of intellectual integrity I’ll simply say I think you are creatively revising your previous statements to mask their original meaning and intent because I’ve shown your original positions to be either false or unflattering or both. But either way it doesn’t matter and I’m content to make no further mention of it and accept your positions on current face value.

    Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that?

    Because the nature of my attack was to place you in the context of the ultra common and the common watch TV religiously (that word is apt for numerous reasons). You are adversarial, you’ve already established yourself as a person who’s defined himself as the opposition of his enemies, thus if I say you watch TV you could be wounded by that if it’s true so you feel they need to “prove” me wrong and say you don’t watch TV. Those are all just hypothetical reasons why you might lie about watching TV to answer your question. Again, it’s not provable.

    And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

    I can believe honesty is an ethic for you, but sometimes the pain of wounding your own integrity is less than the pain of revealing an embarrassing truth. Even I have things I’ll lie about, Fortunately for me I’ve not been pressed to that point anywhere on this blog, but if I had I’d hardly say so. I suspect you realize that protesting honesty is exactly what a liar and a non liar would do, so once again, it doesn’t matter either way. I’m willing to take you at your word. If you don’t watch TV, fine. So long as you act like a commoner I’ll treat you like one. I’m quick to add your behavior is consistently improving and I’m more likely to take you seriously now, though factually my opinion on your positions won’t change until you present new (to me) material. A fact is a fact no matter how it’s delivered.

    I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

    *shrugs* Again, benefit of the doubt.

    I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive.

    “Little” being the operative word. It all depends on what is said and the context. Sentiments like the ones you expressed are routinely used to quash needed, even urgent, complaint. You can trivialize anything, that doesn’t mean it’s actually trivial.

    And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad.

    We’ll get to a more complete answer to this in a minute. That doesn’t hold given your expressed attitude on the quality of being special.

    I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept.

    Ahh, a membership card. If I don’t think like you I can’t possible understand you because if I understood I’d agree? That’s a fallacy and you know it. You’re attempting to shame me again. Like I’m weak for wanting to improve quality of life.

    Once again, do not project your limitations onto reality. Just because you can’t quickly and intuitively imagine a way out of the hedonic pain trap treadmill that constitutes the bulk of the (current) human condition without creating some sort of mindless drooling dystopian nightmare, does not mean no such satisfactory exit exists. And it certainly does not mean I am weak and a failure as a human because I seek it.

    If you want to take the Orwell/Huxley view of pain and suffering, be my guest. In a way that will serve you well because when a solution is found and implemented you’ll be gloriously surprised and of course no one will be spiteful enough to harm you for your incorrectness. Of course the down side is that because of your stubborn rejection of the possibility you won’t be contributing to it’s development.

    http://www.gradients.com/
    http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/

    Your entire position on this subject is thoroughly crushed in the above two links. You position exists because a huge part of the human mind’s ability to tolerate intractable pain is the recognition of or faith in it’s intractability. Pain that could be easily cured, but isn’t, is a higher order of pain. Example: Starving to death in a steel box. vs. Starving to death in a steel box with a 4 course dinner behind unbreakable glass in plain view. which is worse? Why?

    http://blog.ted.com/2006/09/happiness_exper.php

    Because in order for us to tolerate a truly shitty event we must know for a fact first that we can’t change it or we must not be aware of an alternative (qualitatively these are equal).

    My imagination is not so limited, and this may not be because I’m awesome, it could just be because of what I’ve read coupled with my faith in human ingenuity. I simultaneous recognize what can be done and believe with every fiber of my being that not only can it be done, it will be done. Not only do I see the meal behind the glass, I’m confident I’ll be able to shatter said glass shortly.

    You can’t have good without bad.

    Incorrect. Pain and pleasure are separate experiential spectra. Examples: If pain and pleasure are points on a single scale then how can happiness and sadness be experienced simultaneously? Imagine being told your loved one died in a car wreck the very same instant your lottery winning number was announced. Substitute whatever events you like (and dislike), death and money may be bad examples for you personally but you should get my point.

    Second example: If pleasure and pain are the same spectrum then what is boredom? Pain and pleasure are separate values. You can cognitively add them to arrive at a total value, sure. But that’s not how we experience them directly. That is proven by neurology. Different areas of the brain handle different styles of input and experience.

    You can’t have life without death.

    You absolutely can. On the subjective level ask any child how they feel about their favorite stuffed animal. Or examine tribal religions and their perception of “the earth” as a living thing. Rocks, streams, the sun, etc.

    On a logical level at what point does life begin? Is fire alive? Are viruses? How can I be alive if every part of me is lifeless? Are protons and the like alive? I am made of protons etc. Am I even still me when every particle of my body has been replaced? (Ship of Theseus) Are twins the same person? Would clones be? How about perfect copies? What if I divided like a cell? Which one is the original?

    You just haven’t had cause or time to sit and think these things through. I have. Strength through diversity. :)

    “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
    Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

    Again, just because you trivialize something doesn’t mean it is actually trivial. I know you wish to disregard everything you don’t care about as objectively worthless, that’s only human, and in so doing reduce the value of your own limitations, but these are real and serious issues that humanity is going to be forced to deal with, if it isn’t being forced right now. If you want to take a back seat and just not think about it, fine. Go read some other blog. Obviously I have a different opinion.

    Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic.

    It seems in your world a person must be utterly perfect in all ways before they can be thought of as having something to contribute. Tesla hated human hair and was a life long celibate, I guess we should all chuck our electric motors and radio yeah? Kant was a genius AND a lunatic. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The founding fathers were racist sexist classicists, does that make the constitution a worthless document?

    And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

    Fair enough. You seemed to indicate you’re trained in the physical sciences, those that are, typically disdain philosophy as a non-science. If you don’t, cool. I do, in the sense that modern education is biographical and sycophantic, but the concepts of philosophy and the purpose of the study itself is of inestimable value.

    So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

    Logic and ethics. It’s a huge issue. Put simply, I am against gun control law because it does more harm than good and because we aren’t supposed to have it anyway. I have a concealed deadly weapons license and carry a GLOCK 26. (The caps are correct spelling, I think it looks stupid but what can I do.) I prevented a fight with a bbgun as a kid, and the concept stuck. My ability to harm him resulted in no one being harmed. The left opposes gun freedom out of pride and habit. There is no cohesive logic behind it.

    “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
    Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

    This goes back to the very beginning, I think you’re back pedaling, but that’s fine, evolution happens. And regardless of what you thought before, this is what you are claiming now, and we agree. So there’s no point. I have no interest in vengeance.

    “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
    Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV.

    Fair enough and true, but just because you don’t watch TV at home doesn’t mean you don’t watch TV. You could work with a TV, or you could listen to the radio on the way to work or you could read magazines, etc etc. Still, your point holds, that figure takes these things into account. You probably do see less.

    I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

    We seem to have a good bit in common. I also do not drive, and not driving has ethical advantages I’ve now embraced, but this was not my choice. I have a phobia.

    When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

    Again, if that’s your position now, then we agree.

    “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
    A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

    I don’t care about my status in this regard, if I am arrogant and egotistical, so be it. I’ll add it to white and tall as personal stats.

    “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
    Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to.

    Even if true you just made a tiny sample. College might be a booming business in the states but globally college attendance is rare. Fortunately I don’t care about what group you try and squeeze me into.

    You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else.

    If you’re blind to my ability and what I have to offer, so be it, you can go have this conversation with one of the billions of other mes. If I’m so common why spend hours debating me? Your behavior doesn’t match your rhetoric. Again, what if I am better? What if I am special? In your world apparently that’s not possible. Not Even Possible. This to me screams “well trained” and is why I see you as a commoner. To me you’re just another pawn screaming at me for daring not to stand in line.

    And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

    That’s like calling me chicken trying to get me to obey. Look at the logical equivalent of your statement “if you were really special you’d just do as your told like everyone else, you’d do nothing just like me.” It makes zero sense. I’m sorry you’ve given up, but I understand why and I don’t blame you.

    Besides you’re in no position to judge me, not because you have no right, but because you don’t have enough data.

    You didn’t even know my stance on guns, obviously you’ve read about 2% of my work at best. I routinely make my stance on law and freedom clear. My position on drugs and guns alone plants me in the in the extreme minority.

    “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
    No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

    I’ll resist the urge to copy and paste your previous words and accuse you of trolling. Your desire to change the perception of your past position is a victory in and of itself. If this is what you now claim, we agree. There is a difference between revising your position based on new evidence and changing it to suit the moment.

    I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

    Obviously you didn’t even read the links I gave you. This whole blog is “what I’m suggesting.” I’m not about to repeat the sum of my philosophy here just because you can’t be bothered to follow a link. You want me to believe I’m worthless and that you don’t care what I have to say anyway, so why should I bother?

    “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
    You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

    Why am I not shocked that you would rather invent an elaborate and contradictorily byzantine solution than simply admit that something is beyond the scope of your ability? Science is the process of understanding what is manifest so that one can predict events. Science is NOT about determining WHY events manifest or what system is at work behind manifestation, it is a record keeping and prediction system ONLY.

    Godel has shown that any complete system, will contain statements that are both true and unprovable. Whatever the hidden variable is, a representation of it I suspect would be such a statement.

    There are questions that transcend science and religion, and there are questions that defeat them both, questions that are not tricks. This is such a question. Quantum weirdness and the resulting nonsensical (the idea of a superposed state is as absurd as saying reality ceases to exist when you close your eyes) explanations are consequences of attempting to deduce or prove the unprovable.

    If you attempt to debate me on QM here I’ll not publish it, go find my post on quantum mechanics and post there.

  • Jessgreer2000

    “Obviously you know nothing about gender politics. I suggest you track down your nearest GLBT support group and ask a few questions.”

    Sorry, I don’t know how to do quotes. This doesn’t even have to do with the post even. I just seen you say that! well type it. I can’t believe it. I didn’t think i would just be strolling down the comments section and see you talking about ‘groups’. It was just exciting and confusing, and I don’t really know what to say about it.

    Ah, yes I do.

    “BINGO” “I FOUND WALDO”, and “EUREKA”, and one of these “HOLY BAT BALLS BATMAN!”

    that is all.

  • Anonymous

    Shocking isn’t it?

    But to be clear about my opinion, somethings need a support group, some don’t. Having gender issues in a society this obsessed with sexual property and gender roles absolutely does.

    I thank the fates for my gender/sexual identity matching my physical hardware as a matter of course right along with my many other advantages and gifts, such as not having cancer and all the other horrors large and small that could ensnare me. As a rule I try to keep my position in perspective and make it clear that thought I may seek improvement, I am not complacent.

    Though I do feel entitled on the grounds that were I to be given power I would share each entitlement. I think it is exclusive entitlement that should be shunned, not a desire for expanded general human rights, considerations, and abilities.

  • leslie

    What , am I crazy commenting on a comment written 3 years ago? No idea how I got here but I need to say, you are very bright. I like your writing , your thoughtfulness, and I love the list! And I hasten to add I am an adult 53 years old and couldn’t if I tried, stop thinking about all these things. Some of us are born explorers and seek always. Thanks for some lovely thoughts and words. Leslie

  • innomen

    My material isn’t supposed to have a shelf life. At least not in the single digit years range. :)

    Thank you for your kind words. That anyone reads any of my work always surprises me. That they find is beneficial is nothing less than my primary source of purpose in life. I adore comments. :)

    If you like what I have to say in this list you may genuinely like parts of my book. You can get it for free on smashwords.

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/297456

    (It says “buy” but you can set the price to zero.)

  • Brennan Young

    Mostly a very good list, but:

    7 contradicts 12 somewhat. The latter wins. There’s not enough genuine anger, and too much performed indignation.
    56 qualifies 15. (Rhetoric, ethos etc.)
    30 is just silly (I am a non-dualist).

  • innomen

    Thanks for reading the list and taking the time to comment. :)

    “7 contradicts 12 somewhat.”

    7. Angry people are afraid of something.
    12. No one chooses how they feel.

    No they don’t, they are perfectly complimentary. To perhaps clear up any confusion, you should realize emotions often cause other emotions over time. I’ll let someone older and wiser explain :)

    “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to suffering” ~Yoda

    Angry people don’t choose to be angry, nor do they choose to be afraid, because no one chooses how they feel.

    “There’s not enough genuine anger, and too much performed indignation.”

    On who’s part? I don’t quite understand this statement. It comes across as being aimed at me personally but I don’t see the relevance. But I don’t “perform” any emotions, unless simple civility to people whom I lack respect for counts as an emotional performance.

    “56 qualifies 15. (Rhetoric, ethos etc.)”

    56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
    15. The message is independent of the messenger.

    Again I can’t quite see what you’re saying. Care to elaborate?

    But to engage in a bit of elaboration myself: If by “qualifies” you are referring to a kind of agent/principal problem, I’ll point out that I didn’t say from whom the explanation must come. Example: Let’s say a king sends guards to arrest a Baron, but doesn’t tell the guards why. In this case the Baron is entitled to an explanation, but not from the guards arresting him. Also the guards are not responsible for the edict, the king is.

    “30 is just silly (I am a non-dualist).”

    30. Your body is your brain’s pet.

    Well, it’s a radical simplification, but I stand by it as being essentially correct. I can’t know what you mean by duelist, but to respond to a hypothetical argument based on my guess, I’d ask you if you believe having your head removed from your body and placed on a heart lung machine would result in 90% of you essential self being lost, and if so, which parts? I am not my arms, or my legs, or my lungs. My body is in a very real way an environmental suit for my brain. And if you want to get technical about it, not even my whole brain.

    This opens a gargantuan can of worms :) But I’d be happy to help you pick through them. http://underlore.com/why-study-consciousness/ (Comment here if you’d like to explore the brain/body issues with me :) )

    Addition: The point of the pet analogy is to quickly draw attention to the fact that much of what you think of as your body is in reality a totally independent organism with its own motivations. Seeing you body as an animal makes much of the human condition easier to anticipate.

    As an example just think of how much of medical effort is expended countering what the body does. A quick and ubiquitous example would be immune reactions like fever, cold, and allergies. Or the desire to sleep as hypothermia approaches despite that being the worst possible thing you could do. Or the utter diagnostic uselessness of pain. A heart attack for example often hurts in your arm, while the brain doesn’t have pain receptors at all.

  • innomen

    “Genuine fear causes the adrenal glands to get working…”

    Correlation does not denote causation.

    From a design perspective I could easily trigger adrenaline production without the affect of fear.

    “Evolutionary psychology: We wouldn’t have these emotions if they weren’t useful.”

    Useful in a selfish gene driven dog eat dog primitive hunter gatherer context.

    It’s absurdly clear that about 90% of the body’s automatic actions are bad policy. Just ask any medical tech that’s had to face organ rejection or anaphylactic shock ventricular fibrillation, or simple poison ivy.

    “I believe that meaningful, genuine anger is often supressed for bogus reasons, and this often causes other, more complex expressions such as passive aggression, bitterness, depression etc”

    You have this vision of a human being as a horse needing to by driven with whips and treats.

    How a feel about something is often at odds with how I’ve decided I should behave. Indeed courage, is by definition action in the face of fear.

    Negative emotions are intrinsically bad, even when they happen to align with our reasoned ethics.

    Unfortunately humans seems to have little interest in repairing this massive flaw for the time being so the best I can offer is some awareness with which to hopefully counter or at least delay the lesser versions.

    _”The performed indignation I mentioned was not aimed at you…”_

    That could have been made more clear.

    ”…seem to find anger distasteful.”

    That’s because a rational mind realizes anger for what it is. An emotion specifically designed to overwhelm reason and fear for the purpose of allowing for violence and conflict. It’s only useful purpose is in fighting fear and despair, but they are problems in and of themselves.

    “But all this is quite untestable…”

    Not so. Every aspect of human experience is testable. Even consciousness and things as subject as flavor are being picked apart by good science.

    http://underlore.com/why-study-consciousness/

    “What if the burning bush that Moses encountered in the desert was just a burning bush and not God at all?”

    That’s an excellent example of why the messenger should be ignored. Verify the message, not the messenger. Knowing context isn’t the same as knowing the messenger.

    This reminds me of the lazy minded wikipedia pro-con debate. I think humans vastly over rely on source examination so they can avoid having to think and read critically which means examining each piece of data to whatever degree is prudent as opposed to letting a third party give you your opinion.

    Focusing on the messenger is actually an excuse to avoid processing actual context altogether.

    The burning bush illustrates this nicely. The context isn’t how trustworthy moses is, but how accurate perceptions can be or not be coming from a mystic in the desert.

    “Can we somehow retain the core meaning of a message, even when we know that the sender is a liar?“

    Absolutely. I learn from fiction all the time. In fact learning from fiction is distressingly unavoidable which PR firms are based on.

    “Is there even a core meaning, or only an interpretation?”

    That’s a philosophical question beyond the scope of critical thinking skills.

    “So the messenger is *always* a part of the message context”

    Not true. Objective statements are by design independent of the messenger. If I say “1+1=2” I am utterly irrelevant to the accuracy of that utterance.”

    “To disconnect a message from its messenger is to transform the message into some other message, and perhaps to assume ownership of that message, or to reassign authorship in absentia…”

    Which is all the more reason to avoid including the messenger when judging the message at all.

    Indeed cutting out the messenger improves the fidelity of the message in all cases where the content is consistent and provable.

    Take the Epimenides paradox for example. “all the Cretans are liars” If you ignore the messenger suddenly a paradoxical statement becomes a falsifiable one, which is infinitely more useful.

    Indeed in this case reformatting the message to exclude the messenger and retain the meaning yields a more more concise and interesting event. “I am lying.”

    “Only black people may use the word ‘nigger’ without expecting to cause offence, for example.”

    That’s a cultural issue, and also a blatant double standard. Such things are to be avoided, not lauded.

    “if you cut my bits off, I won’t be the same person ‘inside’. (“

    I see, so would it be right to dispose of an amputee’s property on the grounds that the “original” person is now dead?

    I couldn’t disagree more. By that logic I’m a whole different person the instant a single blood cell dies, or a pico second of time passes.

    Granted this occurs in a way, for surely I’m not the same person I was when I was 10 or 20, but if I lost a toe, or my legs, I’d still be me, just me in a different context.

    The person is the mind, the mind is the brain and yes the body affects the mind, obviously, but that doesn’t mean the mind requires the body to be a person, or are you saying quadriplegics and those unfortunates with locked in syndrome aren’t people?

    “You might consider the little-known fact that the gut contains so many neurons – almost as many as in the brain itself – that it is fair to say that we have an additional ‘brain’ taking care of the many complex processes of digestion and so on.”

    By that logic a whale should have the IQ of a small town combined simply by virtue of mass. Never the less I’m willing to stipulate that my gut is an adjunct of my brain, but then again I can still be me even after massive head trauma and brain injury.

    Painting my body as in effect an extension of my brain and therefore requisite in defining me as a person, is a slippery slope and in one sense preemptive surrender. You’re already admitting there is a line, you’re just haggling over where to draw it.

    “There are in fact more microorganisms in there than there are cells in the body itself. It is therefore more correct to regard the body as an ecosystem rather than an individual.”

    Agreed. But it’s arguable that ecosystems typically have subjective experience. Sure I can’t prove you exist in this sense in the way that I know for a fact that I do, but I operates under the safer is better model and err on the side of caution. Rather than simply treat other humans as so much meat, as psychopaths do.

    You remind me of the ant eating mind surgeon in godel escher bach. Can an ant colony have feelings and awareness despite being composed of simple ants? I don’t know, (I lean towards yes) but I do know that ant colonies don’t give any indication of it that we can understand or recognize.

    Frankly I think I would be more me, not less, if I could safely remove certain parts. My gal bladder for example, and my teeth, and other parts of me which create pain and fear quite pointlessly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_%28bioethics%29

Underlore © 2013