Jump to content


The difference between male and female?


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

mattwong #121 Posted May 13 2014 - 09:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

Ah yes, the highest form of intellectual debate: the YouTube video.

 

That's about the level of thought I would expect from someone who thinks racism is a good thing.



Blitzkonig_Hawkish #122 Posted May 13 2014 - 15:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23391 battles
  • 1,094
  • [GRIMY] GRIMY
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View Postmattwong, on May 13 2014 - 01:19, said:

Ah yes, the highest form of intellectual debate: the YouTube video.

 

That's about the level of thought I would expect from someone who thinks racism is a good thing.

 

Did you watch the video yet? Its the book "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche. If you want to delve into that book and look at it feel free, I think its ch8 "Our Virtues".

 

I just linked the video b/c its easier for everyone. The whole point of the argument is less than 5 minutes. I even gave you the time to start watching.

 

 

You: "Racism is bad"

Me: "Why?"

You: "Because racism is bad"

Me: "Circular logic"

You: "Lots of people agree with me therefore I'm right"

Me: "Argumentum Ad Populum"

You: "The state told me so"

Me: "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam"

You: "You linked a youtube video, thats dumb"

Me: "Argumentum Ad hominem"

 

http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

 

I think this is a full list. Make sure your next response isn't one of these.

 

And no, I don't think racism is good to be clear, and never said that actually, you are just putting words in my mouth. But if you deny in group preference has been extremely invaluable to all species, well, I don't know what to say. It's pretty obvious prioritizing the survival of your own young vs someone else's young is ok. I mean you have kids right? Here is the setup. Your kids die, or someone across the world's kid's die. Its up to you to choose. Who do you save? And who do you kill? Pretty obvious for most people. Maybe you would flip a coin. But then you would be selected against so you are just a bell curve anomaly.

 

Oh and just so this is really really clear. You know those toys you bought for your kids? Yeah, your own kids entertainment is more valuable than stopping children from starving to death, being child soldiers, or all sorts of horrible stuff. Right now there are people starving to death. Helpless children. I'm pretty sure being racist is less worse than allowing kids to starve to death.

 

See how fun logic and thinking can be.


Edited by Blitzkonig_Hawkish, May 13 2014 - 15:33.


Comrade_Catastrophe #123 Posted May 14 2014 - 00:40

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 1204 battles
  • 792
  • Member since:
    12-18-2013
Nietzsche was an anti-human idiot. Why are we talking about him like his work is valid?

Scootalove #124 Posted May 14 2014 - 01:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15781 battles
  • 873
  • [ERAD] ERAD
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View PostComrade_Catastrophe, on May 13 2014 - 17:40, said:

Nietzsche was an anti-human idiot. Why are we talking about him like his work is valid?

 

Nietzsche's work is valid.  Misconceptions about Nietzsche's work are horrid, regressive garbage.



mattwong #125 Posted May 14 2014 - 02:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostBlitzkonig_Hawkish, on May 13 2014 - 10:24, said:

Did you watch the video yet?

 

No, because I don't like arguments in video.  Arguments in written form are far superior, and you failed to present one of your own, hence your use of a video.

 

View PostBlitzkonig_Hawkish, on May 13 2014 - 10:24, said:

You: "Racism is bad"

Me: "Why?"

You: "Because racism is bad"

Me: "Circular logic"

You: "Lots of people agree with me therefore I'm right"

Me: "Argumentum Ad Populum"

You: "The state told me so"

Me: "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam"

You: "You linked a youtube video, thats dumb"

Me: "Argumentum Ad hominem"

 

Wow, that would be a really impressive take-down of my argument if we ever had a conversation which remotely resembled that.  I can see you're just resorting to outright lies now.  And no, it's not an ad-hominem fallacy to point out that you have not made an actual argument.  Linking to something that someone else wrote is not an argument.  It's actually a textbook "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

 

Your argument is that "in-group preference" is a good thing for the species, but you neglect to mention that it's only a good thing for that particular group, not the entire species.  For the entire species, inter-group fighting only causes problems.

 

View PostBlitzkonig_Hawkish, on May 13 2014 - 10:24, said:

See how fun logic and thinking can be.

 

If only you knew what logic actually looks like, instead of just thinking you can sound like a logician by quoting latin terms from wikipedia.


Edited by mattwong, May 14 2014 - 02:36.


Blitzkonig_Hawkish #126 Posted May 15 2014 - 15:58

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23391 battles
  • 1,094
  • [GRIMY] GRIMY
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View Postmattwong, on May 13 2014 - 18:35, said:

 

No, because I don't like arguments in video.  Arguments in written form are far superior, and you failed to present one of your own, hence your use of a video.

 

 

Wow, that would be a really impressive take-down of my argument if we ever had a conversation which remotely resembled that.  I can see you're just resorting to outright lies now.  And no, it's not an ad-hominem fallacy to point out that you have not made an actual argument.  Linking to something that someone else wrote is not an argument.  It's actually a textbook "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

 

Your argument is that "in-group preference" is a good thing for the species, but you neglect to mention that it's only a good thing for that particular group, not the entire species.  For the entire species, inter-group fighting only causes problems.

 

 

If only you knew what logic actually looks like, instead of just thinking you can sound like a logician by quoting latin terms from wikipedia.

 

Im not appealing to authority, all you are doing is avoiding the argument because you know you are wrong. First you complain its because of video form you won't watch it. Then you say I am appealing to authority. I am not saying "it is right because Nietzsche said it was right". In fact Nietzsche's cardinal value was to think for yourself and not even to accept his teachings because he could be wrong, his only teaching was to think for yourself and not be the herd, which was in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Also more insults in general.

 

Here is the first argument. You assume that humans deserve equal right and protections under the law without saying WHY this an objective moral value. These natural rights are bestowed from God, but you don't believe in God, so you can't  even use that as an argument (which has its own problems cuz then you have to prove God). There is no reason for a lion to consider the sheep except where it concerns the lions well being such as over predation.

 

Why should everyone be able to vote? Why should each person be punished the same? Why is pleasure better than pain? You have made all of these assumptions based on the influence of Christianity so that you don't even think to question them, you take them as self evident like a religion. These ideas have no basis in reality and are completely subjective. Go watch Colussus: The Forbin Project if you haven't or any of the Asimov robot books.

 

There is no basis for these beliefs, it is dogma. Socialism is just Christianity without a God, and without a God there is no logical right to believe in the morality of these ideals, they are unprovable and arbitrary. This is why through most of history nobles would pay a fine for hurting a common person, and a common person would be killed for striking a noble. And if you think this practice has stopped, money and power still get people out of trouble in the legal system all the time, so it is an ever present reality that the strong and powerful face different rule sets than the poor and weak. I'm sure you would agree with this as a Liberal for Liberalism.

 

In fact all morality is based on what the nobles did. Thats why it is called noble, and bad things are called common. For instance in Buddhism the four noble truths, the word is acutally Aryan, which means noble, Hitler perverted this into his own means but you will see why it was so easy to do so (he also perverted Nietzsche into white nationalist literature even though Nietzsche was extremely ANTI nationalist and didn't like antisemetics (this was in WW1 Germany for reference). The Aryan's were a noble group in India who had light skin. So the four noble truths are basically, how to be like the light skinned, as being superior. Pretty much every form of morality and justice was like this in the ancient world (and modern world), and it is deeply implied ingroup outgroup, noble way vs peasant way. The whole caste system in India was in place to restrict rights of the weak, Ghandi even went on hunger strikes to protest giving the untouchables basic human rights when the British wanted to. There is a video you will like to watch:

 

The truth about Ghandi

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=XG2bKiRu48Y

 

Basically Christianity shook up the social systems where the rich and powerful dominated everything by making being weak powerful in what Nietzsche calls a slave morality. Then you shame and tell people who are powerful they are evil and there will be otherworldly punishment for it in order to try to get more power for themselves. It is almost Machiavellian in that when you are weak you cannot attack so your surrender and sabotage. If you are a sheep and you try to fight a lion, the lion will outright kill you and nothing will be gained, but if you can sabotage and gain favor then you can become the lion or make sure you and your young don't get eaten. This is essentially what the priests did.

 

So the warrior and king/nobles subjected all the weak, the priests rose up to partially control and benefit from helping the poor to look noble, as in they are better, and to tell the strong they will go to hell or a bad afterlife or w/e other guilt tricks to make the strong not as strong and control them. Thats why moral superiority is so much more important than evidence in politics.

 

 

And what is species? Species is just an arbitrary human breakdown of a group into more ingroup and outgroup (I know it has a more specific meaning). It is more in group preference. Why should a species prefer its own species even? Because it is beneficial. What about helping other species? That can be beneficial, the human body is symbiotic with many organisms. We are also extremely dependant on plants, bees, and meat as well as everything else. That is why we are willing to kill other humans over cattle and why hunting on someone else's land would result in wars and death. There is a hierarchy of wills in every being, with them or their children being first, and close kin. This is why we allow people to suffer and starve and die off by the millions when we have the power to stop it, but why should we stop it? Why should we end starvation or disease? What do we get out of it? We don't stop genocide around the world but will fight wars for other reasons that seem a lot less morally important. You will buy your own children luxury gifts while a child you don't know starves to death alone covered with flies and never think twice about it.

 

If a species can gain more by siding with another species than with its own or a more similar species, why shouldn't it? The point of a organism is for its OWN genes to survive, not for the species to survive. Over time the species may benefit from altruism or other moral values because of mutual benefit of cooperation, but ALL of these are only because of the cost benefit analysis of the actions, not because of intrinsic worth. Which is why when slavery becomes more productive we will have slavery again. When people are starving, they will eat each other.

 

Morality, just like rights, are luxuries that are bought when they can be afforded, and sold when base needs aren't met. As recently as the Japanese internment camps Americans saw their rights removed. If you think this stuff is ancient you are wrong. We are two generations away from the horrors of WW2, there is a new source going around right now that I can't find where half of people 35 or younger don't know what the holocaust is....... which is really sad but more than sad SCARY.

 

Also if people were angels we wouldn't need government, so saying that "if people didn't fight life would be good" if just nonsense. There is too much to be gained in fighting, its basic game theory, those who don't engage in trying to take advantage or gain power will lose advantage and lose power. And if you really believe in this idea that "species shouldn't infight", then let me manage your finances for you and convince everyone you know to put their money in a big pool and we will all work together for the greater good. We wouldn't need rights and force to protect us if humans were generally good.

 

 

And besides that fighting is how we cull the herd of the weak and sick. Humans don't have natural predators except other humans. Do you think the human mind is at its peak because we threw spears at wooly mammoths? A tiny brained T-Rex could hunt down a brontosaurus, its not a challenge. Human beings have conquered everything else on the planet and then started attacking each other to fuel progress because we are the only thing that can force us to evolve further (intellectually). War spreads ideas and culture and genetics around to better everyone. The cold war (and nazi scientists) is why we went to the moon. There is no difference between a bunch of dry grass burning in the summer than humans wiping each other out, or a volcano destroying everything and bringing forth great new technologies.

 

This idea of "humans would be good if we all get along" denies our fundamental nature, and the nature of ALL life. All life seeks to produce itself and not do anything that doesn't give it mutual benefit. Those deciding on giving on more benefit out than in will be eradicated. Thats why 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life.
 


Edited by Blitzkonig_Hawkish, May 15 2014 - 16:04.


PD4_Banana_Fish #127 Posted May 15 2014 - 16:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21346 battles
  • 1,520
  • Member since:
    06-22-2013

girls not only fart, they also can 'fish-fart' or '[edited]'



ChekrdDemon #128 Posted May 15 2014 - 20:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 3046 battles
  • 1,299
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
Well that escalated quickly...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users