http://www.amerika.org/

^^^ I finally have a fucking blog.

Now need other victims to read/link to.

Why did you make one when you already use this forum as your blog.

maybe he wants more than just a message board.
especially since on this message board, there is probably only 5 or 6 people that ever agree with him, and the rest of ya just make snotty/sarcastic predictable coments in response to everything he says

I'm actually kind of enjoying this piece on the unabomber and technology.

i was just busting his balls. if i really despised the kid i would've said much meaner things. in reality i don't mind what he has to say at all. i mean everyone is allowed an opinion.

COUNT IT

I agree that there are a lot of people here don't really have any intelligent responses to what he posts, but seriously man, stop kissing his ass.

http://www.myfilmcalledlife.com
but my scanner broke... then my scanning cmputer broke. I need to start that back up.

Orgy, your sarcastic response of snotty sarcastic and predictable is both snotty and predictable.

You guys already see pretty much my entire stream of consciousness on here as it is, so I don't really see the need for a blog.

I PISS ON HUMAN BEANS

Since I am not a gaylord, no, I do not have a blog.


LOL. nah just kiddin'....I do.

It's in my user info.

i don't kiss anyones ass.
i just don't see the point in the way everything he says gets "ganged up on" so to speak.

i don't agree with everything the guy says, but he does make some good points IMO

i think you're just fantazing about one man's face in another man's ass... interesting way for you to come out of the closet.....good for you though buddy!!

out of the closet and into the street! right?!?!

there was no sarcasm involved sir....just a straight forward response.

oh wait....were you being clever again??

ohhhh, youuuu

gotcha

Weren't you saying something about snotty, predictable comments before? *scratches head*

I need to start blogging and everything else that is.

i enjoy some of the stuff conservationist posts. some of it is intelligent. some of it is funny. some of it is annoying. the opeth and mac jokes have gotten really old, but he does say some funny shit.

beatingsinthenontvroom.blogspot.com will one day be up and running. I'm just really in no rush to evidence my superlative tastes.

To be honest, I invite it.

I learned long ago that the truth was unpopular.

Shortly after that, I realized my species was failing because it denies reality.

Since that time, I've begun deliberately using truth as a war magnet that will promote division and force people to consider their in-group/out-group relationship to people who seek truth/reality .

Here's a good summary of that:
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/in-group_bias.htm

This is a vision of what our relationship to reality could be:
http://www.anus.com/zine/db/friedrich_niet...ruth_and_lies_in_a_non-moral_sense/

It doesn't make you friends right away, but it makes you better friends in the long term to behave this way. It also eliminates neurosis and existential doubt regarding public "truth."

what's snotty about defending my point of view while at the same time calling you a faggot?? *scratches balls*

the truth is indeed unpopular.
i knew that you had to (at least somewhat) expect attacks regarding the shit you post....it just seems that many of the comments are the same thing over and over again.

it's like that south park, with whoopi goldberg standing on stage at an award show, just saying over and over again "i hate republicans, repulicans are so stupid".....repetitious to say the least. (i realise that analogy is a bit retarded...but i think it gets my point accross)

Well, what else are they gonna do?

They either come up with a logical argument, or keep repeating the same old stuff. It's not their fault per se.

All of my current beliefs are the result of logical analysis and aren't preferences so much as they are predictions of reality.

But, I was lucky to have some fantastic teachers.

i realise this, but it still annoys the fuck out of me sometimes.

Yeah, pretty much this.

(Actually, that sounds pretty good. Hmmm... Taco salad blog?)

I was talking with this dude on the Ultimate Guitar forums, and he spit out this pithy wisdom:

"90% of the people that I meet are impatient and too self-concerned to learn anything that is even just a step outside whatever the mainstream opinion about that subject is."

http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comment...ople_that_i_meet_are_impatient_and/

Here's the most glaring example:

The debate over intelligence and intelligence testing focuses on the question of whether it is useful or meaningful to evaluate people according to a single major dimension of cognitive competence. Is there indeed a general mental ability we commonly call "intelligence," and is it important in the practical affairs of life? The answer, based on decades of intelligence research, is an unequivocal yes. No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition. And this factor seems to have considerable influence on a person's practical quality of life. Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being, including a person's chances of divorcing, dropping out of high school, being unemployed or having illegitimate children [see illustration].

By now the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential--and they are born that way, just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess and other traits. Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent mental aptitudes into intellectual equals.

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingol...ntelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

What I like about traditional wisdom is that it does not get all neurotic trying to deny this, and finds really optimal ways of adapting humans to reality, so that there's a chance of something greater than menial function/consumerism to life.

Consumerism, after all, isn't really new... it's just commerce plus self-obsession. It's what all societies default to when they're both wealthy and directionless.