Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Satyr, Jan 28, 2007.


Do you agree?

  1. YES

    6 vote(s)
  2. NO

    2 vote(s)

    3 vote(s)
  4. SCREW YOU!!!

    8 vote(s)
  1. Bells Staff Member


    I love you!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Bells, the feeling is mutual. I love me too.

    Hands Bells a water bottle, hastily patches up the nasty-looking cut above her eye and tells her to Goddammit, keep her guard up.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Roman Banned Banned

    Can you stay on topic?
    I know you desperately need to compare yourself to strangers on the internet to reassure your status as []übermensch[/i] (more like menschlichen lololol german), but I was rather enjoying the stuff about how black people aren't as good or cool as me, unless it's spear chucking or its modern day equivalent, football.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Its funny, I should mention I know this girl who has the highest IQ in the galaxy, about 160, I think. Artist and everything.

    Anyway, she thinks that by reading ABOUT a foreign concept will prompt her mastery of it.

    Consider the idea of individualism. She thinks that by reading about being an individual will make her more of an individual. She's all "oh ay I want your dick Nick" with me cuz she thinks I'm like the coolest, psha! she hasn't met Roman apparently, with his sexy, mushroom cut. I mention Roman because he thinks that by tugging on the sac, he hurts the balls. Even though the balls and the sac are two different things, but connected. Still, you can't beat a good tug nevertheless.

    Anyway, reading about a concept kind of discredits practicing the concept in your mind because you convince yourself that you already know all there is to know about it. Your mind is then set because you think it is a subsitute for experience. It's the difference between theory and practice, pragmatism and rationale, or however you wish to call it. Same thing we see here is the difference between understanding the mechanisms of human behavior and being able to relate.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2007
  8. Satyr Banned Banned

    Do you know what’s funnier still?

    How everyone is speaking by everything except the subject matter.
    It seems that concepts or ideas that frighten or insult us can be reasoned away by simply attacking the source.

    Well Stalin was brutal, I heard Lenin was a fag and Marx was an alcoholic.
    See, communism isn’t reasonable.

    Pick an ideology or any belief…it’s easy.
  9. Bells Staff Member



    Well consider it a lesson Satyr. You posted your concepts and anyone who dared attempt to discuss them were called 'imbecile', 'retard', etc, by you.

    You resort to personally attacking anyone who dares question anything in your posts. If you cannot deal with criticism about what you write, then that is your issue and yours alone. A lot of people have posted very interesting and valid points, which you shot down with petty and childish little insults. And when it is turned back at you, you complain?
  10. Satyr Banned Banned

    Intellectual midget.
    Read back on this thread and see what they said to me and about me before I responded in the way that I did.
    Furthermore, shall I pretend I respect their minds or that I value their opinions in ay way, as a sign of how civility is not ‘bullshit’ or should I be honest and tell them what I think of them?

    I “complain”?!
    Moderating mouse, I loved it.

    I enjoyed every minute I revealed their stupidity to them, even if in the end they cannot accept it completely because this would push them over the brink into insanity.
    It’s a mental survival tactic to protect itself from the direst realizations.

    Despite this, my posts stand as a challenge to whoever wants to deal with the topic and doesn’t choose to attack the messenger.
    But attacking the messenger is also welcomed and provoked. I love it when imbeciles enter all bravado thinking they can put me in my place and getting their faces smeared in the bullshit they exist within.

    My questions remain unanswered, proving once more, that social indoctrination moulds and nurtures stupidity as a means of stability and control.
    Your tolerances and equalitarianisms and altruisms are products of education which has taught you to value what offers you the most comforting conclusions, is all a farce.

    None of you are color blind, no matter how well you hide it or you have convinced yourselves that you are, and for good reason.
    Nature never intended for you to be blind to difference or to color or to form or to smell.
    Society blinds you so as to maintain social cohesion and the sense of belonging and unity and harmony.

    Now shut the fuck up and just continue calling me “Wendy” and acting all sarcastic and indifferent.
    I like that too.

    The mouth says one thing but the eyes?...The eyes never lie.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Did you?

    They recognised your message and found it lacking.

    That was your problem. You did not push anyone to the brink of insanity. You may think you have and it might give you some pleasure to think you had, but you actually did not. I think they probably found you to be a tad annoying.

    You are like everyone else. When challenged, you resort to personal attacks. You do it all the time. You just don't like it when it is re-directed at you.

    Read back through your thread Wendy. You started it all.

    The topic was dealt with, just not to your liking. They disagreed with you.

    Don't you get it?

    The 'farce' is not how we are colour blind. The 'farce' exists to those who are not. Colour is not a judge of character, form or substance. It is not essential. It no longer is. Humanity has evolved from the plains of Africa.

    You cannot judge on colour because colour is just colour. It is not an indicator of action or of form. You might see a black man and automatically think 'savage' because of your own intolerance and backward nature, but the reality is he might be more civilised and educated than you. Judging by colour has been found to be lacking in substance because it fails to recognise the true individual within.

    Social indoctrination of the past where people were judged on colour first and foremost failed. And will continue to fail. Racism is taught and learned. It is not something that comes naturally. To judge and hate others because of their colour is not something that is ingrained within our psyche on birth. Yes we recognise the differences, but we do not judge on those differences alone. A white child will ask a black man why his skin is black and may even be frightened of the black man because he is different to himself. If you then go on to tell that child that the black man poses a danger to him because he is black, of course the child will continue to fear and judge black people as such. If you say nothing and let the child find out for himself, within a little while, the fear of the new and unknown disappears. One's actions will always speak louder than one's colour Wendy.

    Of course we aren't colour blind. Who ever said that we were? When I see a black man, I do not fail to see his colour. I just don't think anything of his colour. There is a difference. The same applies when I see a white man. I see his colour but I see nothing in his colour.

    We have just progressed enough to realise that colour is hardly a good way to judge one's character or form. For example, go to the supermarket and buy the shinest red apple you can find. And I would be willing to bet that it would taste bland because it was bred solely for its looks to please the likes of those who go for colour and looks first.

    If you judge only by outside appearances, then you are short changing yourself.

    Was that meant to be a turn on?

    Again, the term 'lacking' comes to mind..
  12. Satyr Banned Banned

    And look what “good points” they made and what rational arguments they formulated.

    One promised ‘putting me in my place’ and delivered a halfhearted disagreement on what he thought was my emphasis.

    Both presented an emotional tirade about ‘what consequences my critique will have’ on their well-being and their peace of mind, as if reality is built around their desires and preferences and personal needs.

    Shall we deny deaths finality because we cannot bear what this means for us?
    Wait ….people already do this. It’s called religion.

    Let us sweep the negative under the carpet and pretend like its not there. And those that dare mention it, let us call them ill and chastise them and attack them.

    This is how morons personalize topics:
    They take this phrase:
    "I enjoyed every minute I revealed their stupidity to them, even if in the end they cannot accept it completely because this would push them over the brink into insanity."

    And they turn it into this:
    "You did not push anyone to the brink of insanity."

    This slight difference is what produces their retardation and emotional responses.

    My “personal attacks”, idiot, are always in relation to the topic and addition to it.
    Theirs are not accompanied by anything relevant and on-topic…But I like them just the same…Ballsy….see.

    Then please quote their relevant disagreements.

    I challenged with a question. They never answered. They never even attempted to answer.
    Their response was that this would disrupt civil cooperation.
    I said that this was hypocrisy and they got offended.

    The topic isn’t whether it suits them or if they personally benefit from pretending to be color blind or if it facilitates coexistence.
    The topic is:
    If color is irrelevant in one context then why is relevant in another or why is form any less irrelevant?

    I never said how one should react to this relevance or the degree of this relevance or what it means or if it benefits idiots.

    I never said what color indicates; only that it indicates something no less relevant than form or texture or smell or sound.
    Morn appearance is action.

    It is also the accumulated representation of every action that was undertaken before and that brought the appearance to be present.
    If environment, moron, affects brain size and intelligence and muscle strength, then it also affects physical attributes.
    Common coloration indicates a common ancestral environmental condition, producing a similar physical condition.
    This common environmental conditioning cannot have had physical consequences and no mental ones, no matter how slight.

    actinos Ballsy are no less conditioned than form or anything else.
    When a social group prevents the extremes in behavior it is obvious that all will remain comfortably in the center, in the average, the normal, the mediocre.

    Behavior imitates behavior.
    One man says thank you and the other reciprocates but how much each means it or what underlies this conditioned social response is in question.

    A pedophile will behave no different than an asexual. He will be civil and polite and outwardly normal.
    Behavior, idiot, can be pretended.

    Then when you see a man’s form, you should not think that there is anything to form, either.
    But notice how you slip the nuanced twist:
    “ If you judge only by outside appearances, then you are short changing yourself”

    Who said anything about an “only”?
    And who is “short changing himself”?

    My questions were precise, clear and simple.
    Your avoidance is telling.

    I don’t judge anything “only” using one sense.
    I see the grape’s redness as part of the grapes essence, but I recognize its form and smell and texture all at once.
    The question is, imbecile, why do you put more emphasis on form and taste and smell and texture than on the color.
    The grapes activity produces its color in relation and as a reaction to its environment as is its shape and smell and taste.

    You choose, or you’ve been trained, to recognize a human being by his shape and sound but his color is deemed too disruptive because it cannot be changed or controlled, like sound, and because it isn’t shared, like form.
    It is divisive and so must be ignored so as to maintain harmony.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Poor thang...You're spinning your big fat wheels again, Ballsy.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    No, both presented ideas that were in contrast to yours. They found your ideas to be lacking and said so.

    Correction. It is called fear. And said fear leads many to religion because they assume religion offers them an 'out' by offering them the idea of an afterlife.

    No one is sweeping anything under the carpet.

    We just don't view colour as being something that is an important value.

    No. You seriously are not so important to anyone here that you would drive them to insanity. You are merely an individual who blows a lot of proverbial hot air on the internet. You pontificate and postulate without offering any solution. You are in short, typical.

    So original. Really. And so expected. Your wit is astounding.

    They answered. Their answers just did not fit into your little box of how you like to categorise things in life.

    On the contrary. You said it was hypocrisy, they laughed at you and you got offended. It shows by the fact you are still posting. It shows by the fact that you basically attempted to say how much better you are than everyone else when in reality, your response has only shown you to be the same as everyone else. Your self defence and manner in which you conducted yourself showed just how much what they said scratched that little painting of your self perfection that you like to portray.

    And the reply was given.

    Colour is relevant only to those who wish it to be. If you judge anything by colour, you fail because colour is only exterior. It says nothing about the individual other than say they are of a particular colour. In that, colour is lacking in relevance. Your argument that it is not brings back to mind the arguments of the little KKK members on here who would argue that colour is the first indicator of a person's intelligence and behaviour.

    Why not?

    How would you react to its relevance?

    Colour is just an appearance. The same as my wearing a black dress is an appearance. Do you honestly think your colour has any significance to anyone else? Is it relevant?

    Oh this is precious.

    Yes, a black man's colour indicates that he or his ancestors are from Africa. And? What of it?

    What do you think when you see a black man?

    Do you honestly think that a black man born and bred in the US will have the same conditioning (both mental and physical) than a long distance runner born in Kenya for example, merely because they share the same colour?

    Do you think the heat and dryness of Africa has affected their intelligence and that this affect has been carried through the generations and affects even those who live in Europe or the US for example? So is this your way of saying that when we see a black man, we should tell ourselves that he is obviously 'different' in intelligence or mental capacity because his environment or that of his ancestors will have done something to his brain?


    Since you are so above the herd, what do you think when you see someone of colour? How do you view them?

    Because colour is never an indicator of just how good the fruit actually is.

    For example, if I see a bunch of purple grapes and they are big and brightly coloured, its size and colour do not give me an indication of what they are like on the inside. It is only after biting into it and seeing for myself what it tastes like that I will know. Some grapes are bred only for colour and shape and never for taste. Sure you'll look at it and see it is a bunch of purple grapes, but that is it. You know nothing at all about what they taste like until you bite into one.

    The same with oranges. People always go for oranges that are bright and orange without any trace of green, thinking that the green indicates its level of ripeness. Oranges can actually be completely green and fully ripe and juicy. The orange colour is only caused by the sun and does not affect its ripeness, sweetness, how juicy it is, etc.

    And you prefer to look at one's colour and form a judgement with that, along with his shape and sound. All of which are characteristics that say nothing at all about the individual or his true self. It may give an indication of where he is from, but it says nothing about who he is today.

    You are in short, superficial by nature. You look at the external and not the internal or true self of the individual.
  14. Satyr Banned Banned

    You poor pathetic nincompoop, you despicable idiot - Have you ever read anything on metaphysics?

    Appearance, moron, as the temporal/spatial phenomenon which makes itself apparent.

    You mean, Moron, like a human with a penis indicates that it’s a male?

    No, you should tell yourself:
    “Man I’m just as dumb as that nigger.”

    Yeup...that just about sums me up.
    But at least I don't pretend to be civil.
  15. Roman Banned Banned

    Why do negroes have such fine musculature?
  16. Satyr Banned Banned

    Lacking the brains to get food the easy way, they are left with the hard way.
  17. Roman Banned Banned

    That makes too much sense. Don't be such a mental midget.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    So you still can't answer the question?

    And I swear, if you are about to quote Aquinas I will sob like a baby.

    What is your first thought that enters your mind when you see someone of colour?

    You have said nothing of worth, merely postulated and when anyone disagrees with you, you resort to the same pathetic and ridiculous tactics you have always resorted to.

    Colour is colour. It means squat in the end. It says nothing about the experiences of the individual. It might give some indication about his race, but nothing about him as an individual. The same as the shape and colour of a grape says nothing about how it tastes.

    A penis indicates someone is a male but it says nothing about the nature of that particular male. Or do you think we are not individuals by our very nature? Are all males the same merely because you have a penis? Well yes, you have a penis, but it does not make you all the same. You may all be male, but your very nature and thought processes will not be. Your beliefs will not be. That would be like me saying that since you and LG are both male, you are both the same.

    Your view is short sighted because you are grouping all into one. You discount the individual experiences of each based only on colour. You are attempting to generalise and it cannot withstand the test of indivuality. While your supposed metaphysical argument might portray the experiences of one group, it fails to identify the experiences of each individual within that group that may shape that particular individual.
  19. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    I don't know about grapes specifically, but I can tell you exactly how a certain tomato tastes just by looking at it. Well mostly..
  20. Bells Staff Member

    So you can tell just by looking at it whether it will be tasty and ripe? You can tell just by touch that it was ripened on the vine and not picked green and left to colour?
  21. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    The quality of this thread is beginning to wane into Cesspool territory due to the Silly gooseness of it's manhood.
  22. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Yes. I've been growing them for many years and know what to look for. Tomatoes fall into different classifications (beefsteak, cherry, etc), and like grapes, need certain conditions to ripen properly. Size and smell are indicators of taste. Color is also an indicator of taste, with darker colored tomatoes (purple/black) being very rich for example.

    You can bet that almost any tomato in the supermarket was picked green, not ripened properly and tastes like crap.

    Australia has a great climate for tomatoes, you should try your hand at them Bells.
  23. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Roman, Satyr, shame on you both for insulting the ancestors of ancestors -Afikaners, where meh niggas live. That said...

    Here's one for you Roman: *bap*

    Here's one for you Saty: *boop*

    Here's one for you Roman: *bop*

    Here's one for you Satyr: *bloop

    Now that your hands are stinging with lix, think about your backsides.

Share This Page