The Media finally agrees.. homosexuals aren't human.

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Ghet for Prez, Oct 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Not if they are kept alive by Liberal pussies who refuse to allow nature to take its course and consistently interfere in every aspect of natural human existence to appease their emotional perspective of life. The weak will not die off. In fact, they will be treated as equals to the strong (who will be forced to take care of the weak) and will mate with other weaklings and overpopulate the earth with more of the weak, causing either evolutionary stagnation or degenerate devolution.
    test
  2. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    Yahunyoti your argument would make more sense if you targeted future advancements in medicine which would prolong lifespans. This sort of technology would come into existence necessarily because there would be not only a huge business imperative (think of how many people would pay to stay alive longer; of how many people who do this even today with a constant bombardment of pills only so that they may stay alive in their misery for another day) but there would also be a huge moral imperative (how could we prevent technologies which keep people alive)

    I think one day death will be rare and even further down the road a mere memory. so overpopulation would ONLY become a concern in the event that these things happen. Abortion is not your enemy.
    test
  3. Take this a step further. If rights are designed to prolong the life of a ruling entity via limited capitulation, does this not make rights inherently reactionary?

    This example reeks of anthropomorphism. Remember, a right is what a powerful entity bestows on it's citizen base to prolong it's own existance. If there are rights to property at all, these rights are founded as such because landowners have spent a considerable amount of time (centuries, in the collective sense) maintaining their own defense from other scheming people who wanted there land. And still do, to this day. It used to be a battle fought with weapons and soldiers and God. Now it is fought with tax exemptions, fancy legal manuvers, and zoning limitations. Different methods, same struggle.

    The right to own land is not a real right. It is a collective, amorpheous pact between ruling entities and resource holders that the ruling party will not declare all out war against those who hold the resource as long as the resource holders pay tribute. It is a mutual capitulation (the goverment does not have direct access to the land, and the resource holder has to give up a part of it's profit) for the sake of mutual existance. It doesn't make anyone more attentive or lazy that the right is in place. It just makes both parties willing to put up with each other's requests. (ruling party wants resources, resource holder wants a large degree of autonomy). It isn't a right or a victory or anything people celebrate as progress. It is a passive stand-off between two parties.

    When is the last time you questioned the Right to Free Speech without getting emotional? The history of how such a right came to be, why it was considered improtant, and if such a thing can still exist when it was written in a time right before the Industrial Age changed the entire human experience?

    Science isn't fueled by rights. Science is an organization like anything else that will naturally form structures and interaction rules between entities over time. Everything about human creativity is self-replicating and/or self-organizing. That old witches tale about the Dark Ages being evil for science... meanwhile, the Chinese, the Arabs, and almost anywhere else in Asia was enjoying the marvels of advanced metallurgy and gunpowder. Please, McGirth, this isn't 7th grade. Rights do not propel science. Morality can hinder specific technologies somewhat, but rights do not accel it. In fact, scientific progress only appears to be linear and progressive, when in reality, scientific understanding is increased along very multidimensional events and is heavily-dependant on many human infrastructures. (social, economic, information, etc.)
    test
  4. Rights are not linked to power. Rights are what a ruling party offers to it's citizen base in order to survive changes in how the ruling party preconcieves the ruling party's reality. If the citizen's think they are getting "powerful" by the ruling party "submitting" and offering a right, then that plays into the hands of the ruling party. There is no power in that. So the ruling party offers you the right to abortion. Great!

    CHINA: The ruling party has no say over cultural affairs, and so the people abort girls (who are traditionally inferior assets) instead of boys thanks to pre-screening technology, and all of a sudden, you have way more boys than girls, giving that nation a tremendous military asset in their favor, which will result in problems in neighboring regions (4 wars with India, etc.) and powerful estbalished infrastructures. (USA now, Russia in the 50s) But they play with fire. If they cannot take a hold of this boy-to-girl ratio, then they risk dramatic internal violence. Abortion is turning China into a political/military powderkeg.

    EUROPE: The ruling party puts on the show of being involved in cultural affairs, and people abort consistantly as if it was an instinctive reflex. All of a sudden, you no longer have a new work force to tax for all your fancy-dancy Social programs that help the Baby Boomers continue their state-sponsered whine fest all the way to their state-sponsered graves. And so you have to import immigrants from post-colonial/Islamic states, resulting in tremendous social tension that will result in dramatic internal violence. Abortion, essentially, will single-handedly promote the feasibility of Fascism as an effective theory in Europe... again.

    BUT IT'S A RIGHT DESIGNED TO EMPOWER WOMEN! Except, this super-hyper-focused intention is essentially turning the tide everywhere in the fucking planet, priming it for self-detonation. There is no power when the very energy source of human civilization itself (the womb) is being tampered with to help promote outdated Marxist morality! So... I ask you... McGirth... WHO benefits from Abortion!? You'll relfexively say it's about the individual, but I ask you again: WHO benefits from Abortion!? Which entity could possibily benefit from tampering with the prime engine of human civilization?

    Additionally...

    Many psychotrophics is illegal, and all kinds of rich and powerful people do it. Many financial practices are illegal, and all kinds of rich and powerful people do it. They just can afford fancy lawyers to find loopholes and bypasses in the written word of the law. Technicalities are big business.

    Evolution is how biology adapts to pressure. Rights are how ruling parties adapt to pressure. And just like biology, the established relationships between predators and prey will be maintained. And as such, the relationship between rights and power is in the ruling parties favor since they are the one's who create the rights. The prey doesn't make the rules. The prey adapts. The predator controls the field.
    test
  5. Overpopulation does not exist. It never has. It never will.

    The concept, when speaking statistically, is known as a threshold. Once you cross it, self-regulation takes place and the system attempts to return to homeostatis.

    Population self-regulation is typically expressed as war or migration. (Which results in war later on)

    This is why I say the worldwide system of abortion exists to serve another purpose that, if you could only see what abortion has lead to now, you would understand. If you are alive today, give yourselves a pat on the back. Our generation has survived the most horrendous genocide in human history. Now we get to live in a world of population imbalances that tip scales uselessly, all in the name of Marxist morality.
    test
  6. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    gyatDAYUM this is boring!
    test
  7. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    Yeah, give him time. He takes a while to catch up...
    test
  8. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    nah nah you don't see it. this is an old discourse. McGirth finna win too. lol his side always wins this one.
    test
  9. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    liberal policy does not make air/space/food/etc. appear from nowhere.

    there's finite resources, so there is a maximum amount of people that can constintly be consuming, breathing, metabolizing the limited resources this planet has.
    test
  10. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    You have not only achieved stupidity, you have taken it to a plateau that no other human being has ever before dared. I respect you for that, if for nothing else. If you're going to do something, do it well.
    test
  11. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    i cant dumb it down any more for u

    u just dont understand

    stay outta science topics please

    it goes over ur head
    test
  12. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Why are you even entering the thread and posting then?

    @ ghet it's infanticide not genocide.
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    That is clearly the problem in this thread.
    We're not talking science, stupid.
    We're talking politics.

    Slap yourself.
    test
  14. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    you're talking politics, i'm talking science.

    scientifically, overpopulation cannot happen due to the 1st law of thermodynamics.
    test
  15. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny]

    Goodbye Rich.
    You are excused from this subject.
    test
  16. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    yup u are excused

    go back to gettin fucked by strap on subjects
    test
  17. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    1-rights have many functions thats just one. and of course judges react to factual situation, that's their job.

    3a-the example and laws in general govern human affairs, so why woulden't they "reek of anthropormorphism?" We aren't talking widgets or ••••••s here.

    3b-"a powerful entity" - do you mean a constitution? a court? who is this powerful entity? is it god? is it the elite? the reactionaries? the anthropomorphs? the illuminate? again, we went through this, dem government dosen't have some half-retarded super-tyrant at the top that makes all the decisions and all his decisions are linear and with only one consideration in mind. i.e. rights can serve many concerns and arn't given by some feudal half-retarded super-tyrant.

    3c-i suggest you look at the history of the enclosure movement & more generally the move from feudal land to private property based land system. this is historically incorrect. However, this is correct in the sense that this is what Locke contends"in theory". so the move to laws and government governing property, for locke, comes from men liviving in a state of war protecting their property then entering into a compact.

    4-okay so i see here your making a distinction b/w real and "not real" rights. your saying property is not a real right because it involves citizens given up power/supported a ruling authority or state of order along with laws (again, the lockean argument of compact). thus it does not make people lazy. your saying its not real becuase ppl did not celebrate it as progress. Again, this is incorrect, private property was apart of the whole progress idea. In fact, libertarians argue that the move away from provate property, by imposing more taxes/obligations on property has returned us to feudal like times where property isn't real property anymore. i.e. they think this right has REGRESSED and they celebrate it as PROGRESS. I think your definition of rights in your earlier post has pretty much been negated here.

    really though i think the distinction you want to make is that you don't agree with CIVIL rights, not that you don't agree with rights in general (which includes property rights, contract rights, etc). you think civil rights make people lazy. this is a different argument, your original arguments stemming based on what you considered "rights" to be in their nature. your going to have to stem that statement from what you think differentiates civil rights from other rights then draw out your statement by logic. otherwise there's nothing for me to refute lol.

    5-has the right to free speech, as a legal instrument, been absciended?
    also are we supposed to act like robots/i.e. no emotions. since your considering property as not a right, when was the last time you saw someone having their property taken from them not get emotion? and exactly is people getting emotional relevant?

    6-uh... you do know universities don't grow like crystals in a science lab jar right? wait, so universities grow like crystals in labs but other elements of civil order are the result of ruling elites going into compacts together. this makes no sense.
    test
  18. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Says the man who actually ate his girl's period.

    Like I said, you're dismissed from this conversation, Rich.
    test
  19. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883

    i'm confused. so now your comparing rights changes to evolution. so are rights like crystals in jars too now? (i.e. natural outgrows).

    also why are you asking who benefits from abortion? what happened to your contention that legal change stems from scientific/tech change? why have you made the distincton that abortion is part of some govt/illuminate conspiracy AND NOT the result of technological progress.
    It seems pretty simple to me from the technological effect laws point of view, new birth control methods have led to increases in the use of these methods whcih inturn have led to shifts in legal rights (i.e. abortion rights)
    ^(not saying i agree with this). I'm just wondering how/where your drawing a distinction b/w laws effected by tech and laws that are the result of super-tyrants wanting to maintain their power?

    also. lets say abortion was banned. do you really think it would overturn the civil order? the civil order seemed to be doing fine before, why NOW does the civil order all of a sudden turn around and say (in its retarded-super-tyrant voice) "duhhh... CHILDREN WILL UNSEEDED MY POWER!!!!!! uhhh... ABORTION LEGALIZE JUDGE!!!!" SC judges then proceed to comply with the wishes of their master.

    do you really think that the opposite, i.e. if abortion was banned, would lead to an overturning of the civil order?
    this whole point of view that the civil order/govt is some sort of super-tyrant retard that just wants ot maintain its power and NOTHING ELSE makes no sense. It makes even less sense given that you've already argued that property rights AREN:T the result of this super tyrant wanting to maintain civil order but the result of ppl actually giving up their power to form a common compact.

    it seems really totally arbitrary:
    1-rights ghet does not agree with are the result of a super-tyrant retard that wants to maintain power for itself. your all fools/emotional/anthropomorphic idiots for arguing otherwise.
    2-rights ghet agrees with are the result of the propertied class entering into compact with each other in actual history. the super-tyrant retard being somehow absent here, afterwall why would the super-tyrant retard ever agree to this?
    AND ALSO. 3-changes in law are the result of technological shifts but somehow not changes in rights or property. which changes? who knows. but ALL CHANGES since it was a categorical statement. but somehow not the ones ghet mentions in examples.

    also, just so its clear. my contention is not that the civil order does not try to maintain itself. of course it does, otherwise it woudlent last. my contention is that its not its only motivating factor. also the govt isen't some sort of unitary-super-tyrant-retard.
    test
  20. You're missing the entire picture. You are disappointing me with your black-and-white compartmentalized breakdowns. I'm anticipating a letter-by-letter quoting, soon.

    Not once have I suggested a tyrant at the top. I am simply suggesting that the current situation of the world is in the benefit of specific participants. Perhaps people who follow an ideological outcome, or people who profit from maintainance for current infrastructures. You don't need to imagine consolidated iron fist to suggest what I am suggesting.

    My view on land/government compromise is historically incorrect to specific interpretations. My version is not incorrect if you stop looking at history with Marxist-colored glasses of class struggle. It wasn't the rich vs. the poor. It was those standing on resources vs. those who sought to organize them for specific ends. In the end, a mutual compromise was formed when direct conflict was discovered to not to be the most useful of outcomes. Again, the move to laws, the granting of rights, did not stop the struggle between the involved parties. It simply adjusted what weapons they fight with. Instead of siege warfare, you call a lawyer or organize some environmental groups to whine about pollutant run-off. It's nto about lazy or productive. It's about adente. That's not rights. You use the word "right" when you want to incite the mob. But when describing a new way of viewing history, the mob is not there to support you. I prefer observing history -without- moral bias, not as a method of absolution of specific actions, but as a way to discover larger, unseen movements.

    Again, my key stance, which you seem to have difficultly comprehending, is that rights are how ruling entity's evolve for the sake of their own survival. Therefore, rights are the interface between a ruling entity's action and the people they rule. THEREFORE, rights -must- appeal to those who are ruled.

    I view ruling entities as biological entities, complete with their own definition of adaptation, propigation, birth, death, etc. (All life functions) Humans are made up of non-human elements, so it only makes sense that people like me would desire to keep the human aspects on the micro/individual level, and not the macro level.

    Civil Rights? Sure, we'll give those away for free in the middle of an unpopular war. No problem! Worked, too! Kept the war up for 10 years!

    Because of this, rights can never be a sufficient path to empowerment. Rights are formed naturally, but either because all other methods have been exhausted, or, more often than not, because the passion of the mob was too loud to supress otherwise.

    This method of thinking infects how we view everything. The pending disasters caused by abortion is proof of the failure of rights designed for short-term anthropomorphic ends being handed out like candy.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)