0
   

Great Americans?

 
 
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:03 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70069 wrote:
I read your article very carefully. I disagree on several fundamental points, one of which is your assertion that "Reflection" is a "Flow of information," unless you define Reflection as the process of learning from one's environment, which is not stated.


Reflection is an element i added to the theory myself. Horizontal and Vertical i have borrowed in the general sense from Noam Chomsky but provided my own interpretation.

By reflection i mean trying to generate ideas on your own rather than accept ideas from any outside sources.

Reflection can produce ideas that NOBODY will share with you, in other words it can produce NEW ideas. Without these ideas WE ARE DOOMED and yet it is customary to use the word INSANE or NUT to describe people who have ideas which don't match ones universally accepted. in the old days these people were also called HERETICS.

Thus saying the earth is round was HERESY and PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. Today saying 9-11 is an inside job is treated the same way. In other words THINKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND PROBABLY WILL ALWAYS BE A CRIME.

You must have the courage to resist attempts to intimidate you into not thinking. 90% of people don't have that courage.

JackFlash;70069 wrote:

The premise that all power is oppressive, I think, is flawed at the inception.


cite examples to the contrary.

JackFlash;70069 wrote:
If I took your theory seriously, I could believe no one, even you; and all knowledge would be worthless.


Judging correctness of the argument based on the conclusion is a logical fallacy related to wishful thinking. Whether you like the conclusion or not should have no bearing on the argument itself.

Furthermore your conclusion is wrong. Not all knowledge would be worthless. All knowledge would be SUSPECT and most would indeed be worthless. However it already is worthless, and in many cases FALSE. Your wishing it to be solid truth cannot change what it really is.

Just because you like believing in Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't mean that the laws of logic must be rewritten in a way that should make AGW look like it is not a crock of sh1t.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:54 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70078 wrote:
I have already stated that I do not consider skin color to be a factor in any human attributes.


it is true that black skin color does not cause stupidity

it is also true that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming

and yet global warming is well correlated with carbon dioxide ( actual warming caused by the sun )

and stupidity is well correlated with black skin color

in case of stupidity of blacks i don't think anybody tried to study that subject ( as he would be fired from his university immediately if he tried ) but i don't think there needs to be any reason. we don't need a reason for the sky to be blue - it just is.

all humans started out in Africa. some then traveled through india to australia. then to asia, then to americas, europe and middle east.

those groups who were in most need to constantly adapt to new circumstances developed the highest intelligence. those who were most comfortable in their environment were subject to least evolutionary pressure and evolved the least.

blacks are least intelligent because they never had to travel the earth. Jews are the most intelligent because they had to travel the most.

Jews are 0.2% of the world population yet over one half of all world chess champions are Jews. NONE of the world chess champions have ever been black even though there is no shortage of Blacks anywhere nor any rules preventing them from entering the competition. To deny that some races are intellectually superior to others is to be a Liberal ! HAHAHA ! ! !

Of course there can be many reasons why some races ended up more intelligent than others. The one i mentioned is only the most obvious. But if you truly believe that all races are equal on the inside - then you should also believe that all races are equal on the outside as well. After all either evolution exists or it doesn't. You can't tell evolution what it can and cannot do - even if you're a Liberal !
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 12:06 am
@NEUROSPORT,
By the way do you know why Liberals deny that blacks are less intelligent while Libertarians don't ?

Because for a liberal system which involves distribution of wealth the notion that people are not equal causes problems. How can you distribute the wealth PROPERLY among people which are all different ? Liberals must reject reality because it is incompatible with their agenda.

On the other hand since Libertarians don't believe in distribution of wealth it causes no problems for our theory to accept an obvious truth that people are different.

Libertarian could care less if you're white, black, straight, homo, or if you're a dog or a vegetable. As long as a libertarian doesn't have to finance your welfare checks you can be a space alien.

But when you have a system where the successful must feed the losers that immediately begs the question - why do we need blacks ? Wouldn't it be easier if we just sent them to Africa instead of paying for them to sit in prisons ?

Thanks to miscegenation of course it is not possible to send them to africa any more. Since it is not possible, and since Liberals will not give up on their wealth redistribution Agenda they are left with only one choice - DENY, DENY, DENY and protest any scientist that researches race until they are fired and blacklisted.

You see liberty and truth are like yin and yang - they go together. Either you have both or you have neither.

We libertarians stand for truth not because we are good people ( for the most part, we are not ) but because we need it to secure our Liberties. Liberals love lies not because you are bad people ( for the most part, you are good people ) but because you need the lies to take liberties away.

A person will not give up his liberty unless he is made to be insane first. And it takes A LOT of lying to do that.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 12:18 am
@NEUROSPORT,
Conservatives love lies too.

That's because only an insane person would hand his life over to some general in the Army or to some pedophile Priest.

So Conservatives need their own lies to maintain their insanity at a healthy level.
0 Replies
 
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 03:45 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70079 wrote:
Reflection is an element i added to the theory myself. Horizontal and Vertical i have borrowed in the general sense from Noam Chomsky but provided my own interpretation.


Noam Chomsky, A libertarian socialist, more like my political and social position on the chart than yours.

NEUROSPORT;70079 wrote:
By reflection i mean trying to generate ideas on your own rather than accept ideas from any outside sources.


Like taking Noam Chomsky's theory and adding to it?

NEUROSPORT;70079 wrote:
Reflection can produce ideas that NOBODY will share with you, in other words it can produce NEW ideas


Sharing and consulting with others produces BETTER ideas.

NEUROSPORT;70079 wrote:
it is customary to use the word INSANE or NUT to describe people who have ideas which don't match ones universally accepted


Isn't this the same manner in which you describe people who have ideas different from yours, like Al Gore, maybe?

NEUROSPORT;70079 wrote:
Thus saying the earth is round was HERESY and PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. Today saying 9-11 is an inside job is treated the same way. In other words THINKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND PROBABLY WILL ALWAYS BE A CRIME.


Sorry, I missed the headlines about those who were executed for "saying 911 is an inside job."


I've heard all of this stuff that you're preaching, many times before. You beat the drums of uniqueness, yet all of your theories are copied from others with slight modifications. You sound like every other neo conservative blogger on the net.

The real world just doesn't fit neatly into little bundles of disjointed theories.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 04:10 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70080 wrote:
blacks are least intelligent because they never had to travel the earth. Jews are the most intelligent because they had to travel the most.


This is a crock. First, neither race nor intelligence have been clearly defined and no genetic code for intelligence has been found.

There have been many studies and many theories put forward on the topic, but none have ever been credible for the reasons above. There are too many factors in determining intelligence to measure the subtle differences between people of different backgrounds and cultures.

In the short amount of time since humans first left Africa, the brain has not had enough time to evolve very much; and there are no differences in the brains of different races, or any of our other internal organs. I'm not sure that skin color and facial features would be considered a part of the evolutionary process.
0 Replies
 
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 04:26 am
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70088 wrote:
Noam Chomsky, A libertarian socialist, more like my political and social position on the chart than yours.


Chomsky was my introduction to politics. I mostly agree with his analysis of media bias and America-Israel relationship.

I certainly don't agree with his view on 9-11.

The only time i came into contact with his "Anarcho-Syndicalism" is in the movie "Corporation"

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

But that movie only points out the problems with corporations. It doesn't suggest what is to be done about it.

I don't see any alternatives to corporations. We just need to figure out a way to control them.

I don't accept or reject information based on Authority. I like some of Chomsky's ideas but not others.

JackFlash;70088 wrote:
Isn't this the same manner in which you describe people who have ideas different from yours, like Al Gore, maybe?


no i wold never call Al Gore insane or a nut. al gore is ultra-sane. more sane than i am. he understands that people are stupid worthless sh1t and their only purpose is to pay taxes ... TO HIM.

the word i used was CROOK.

JackFlash;70088 wrote:

Sorry, I missed the headlines about those who were executed for "saying 911 is an inside job."


Police and FBI manuals list Libertarians as potential terrorists ...

JackFlash;70088 wrote:

I've heard all of this stuff that you're preaching, many times before. You beat the drums of uniqueness, yet all of your theories are copied from others with slight modifications. You sound like every other neo conservative blogger on the net.


did i beat the drum of uniqueness ? or did you guys ascribe those properties to me ?

i have some ideas of my own, which is more than can be said for most people, but they are mostly unfit for a place like this.

JackFlash;70088 wrote:

The real world just doesn't fit neatly into little bundles of disjointed theories.


you have an image of me in your head - but that's all it is.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 04:45 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70090 wrote:
I don't accept or reject information based on Authority. I like some of Chomsky's ideas but not others.


From your article:

"Horizontal flow of information is NOT designed to be a lie however it is universally CONTAMINATED with MEMEs acquired from the vertical stream."

"Our current society is LIE-BASED and utterly corrupt at all levels"

"The truth can only come from within an individual, and it can only spread to other individuals horizontally."

"Peer to peer communication should NOT be eliminated - but merely placed BELOW reflection."
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 05:11 am
@JackFlash,
and where is the contradiction ?

i consider Chomsky my peer.

listen. as i said you have too much time. if you have nothing to do you can read my other articles.

http://www.diy-av.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=36&sid=32a49c25c73dec1a3755e66139ff2c00

you seem to be way too hung up on that particular one.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 05:35 am
@NEUROSPORT,
Here, you can have my news sources as well:

Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com

EXPOSING GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER - - ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM
0 Replies
 
dson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 07:28 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70078 wrote:
An Ironic Rhetorical Statement used to make a point. It was not meant to be taken as a serious opinion of mine. I believe that I have already stated that I do not consider skin color to be a factor in any human attributes.


Yeah you stated it then made a racist statement therefore contradicting yourself and now your making yourself look even more foolish.

How am I suppose to discern an Ironic Rhetorical Statement through?
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 12:54 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70028 wrote:

and he isn't an exception. cannibalism is almost the norm in Liberia even as these people all speak fluent English, many have cell phones and some even have internet.


Yeah....this is not even close to being true.

:thumbup:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Great Americans?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/27/2021 at 07:15:43