academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X Humectress
Attitudes toward hierarchies shed light on fundamental differences between the left and the right. The latter tend to be skeptical of them and for this reason, leftists often rally around the value of equality. On the other hand, the right views hierarchies as desirable because they promote social order. Meritocracy is the underlying premise behind the argument for the necessity of hierarchy. It is often assumed that the elites deserve to be in power because they are more qualified to govern than the ordinary people. Clearly, this principle can be abused and in many cases, an unworthy person joins the ranks of the elites simply by being born into the ruling class.
The elites aspired to remedy the intellectual weaknesses of their youngsters by subjecting them to a rigorous education. That is why it was quite common for nobles to be tutored by the leading scholars of their time. When Diogenes the Cynic was sold into slavery, he was purchased by an affluent estate owner in the capacity of a philosophy tutor for his son.
Alexander the Great was educated by Aristotle himself and Descartes taught Queen Isabella of Sweden. In many cases, the children of the aristocrats simply lack the intellectual ability to be well-educated and the upper-class routinely import talent into their ranks. Edmund Burke is the case in point as he was not born into the aristocracy, but proved worthy of joining them.
Throughout the history of the Western civilization, the relationship between membership in the elite social class and education has seemed clear. The aristocrats made a special effort to educate their young to ensure that they would become worthy successors. As such, they were expected to not only manage their parents’ estates but to also pursue political engagement to serve the class interests of the ruling families. This form of education has been unabashedly elitist and it is because of rather than despite that, the students who received schooling in this era achieved considerable intellectual growth. Those who were quite gifted were expected to work hard at their studies and the less talented were expected to work even harder.
Those who wished to make education available to the general public were often forced to concede that educators can only offer opportunities for intellectual self-enhancement. However, the onus was on the students to take advantage of these opportunities by displaying hard-work and natural talent. Yet the proponents of this position believed that when given such chances to get ahead in life, they would undoubtedly take advantage of them and positive social changes will occur as a result. It was even hoped that as more people born into plebeian surroundings gained access to higher education, society would become more egalitarian. At the core, those who agitated for democracy insisted that a well-educated citizenry was the basis of social progress.
Yet, the advent of the Industrial Revolution soon cast doubt upon the viability of this strategy. As the emergence of capitalism greatly contributed to the prosperity of the United Kingdom and the United States, these two countries began entering the third stage of demographic transition. Therein, their population increased because more children born to non-privileged families received the basic necessities for survival well into adulthood. Perturbed by the hypothesis of a Malthusian catastrophe, Francis Galton embarked upon a systematic study of heritability of intelligence.
Galton’s findings led him to believe that intellectual ability was heritable to a significant degree and that the elites were more likely to be genetically endowed with the potential of this nature than their less privileged counterparts. Building on this premise, Charles Spearman developed the theoretical framework known as the “g-factor” suggesting that one is born with a certain degree of intellectual potential and his natural talent tends to be spread out evenly throughout various cognitive tasks. With these considerations in perspective, he was concerned that the seemingly uneducable crowd not only struggled with academic tasks but also lacked the intellectual potential to contribute to society. In light of the troubling possibility that the less talented greatly outnumbered the most talented and the offspring of both groups could survive, the Malthusian catastrophe appeared to be a realistic possibility. In effect, this posed a troubling question to progressive activists wishing to “democratize knowledge” by making education available to all Americans. Is the system of education truly making the average person more intelligent or is it unduly rewarding the least intelligent and the least industrious members of society?
By the early 20th century, American legislators have become preoccupied with the notion of dysgenics as those with the most mal-adjusted genes seemed to reproduce the most. Following the paradigm developed by Horace Mann, educators cherished very little hope in empowering all children to become intellectuals. Instead, public schools have mostly concerned themselves with creating a citizenry that was obedient, orderly and suitable for work in a highly regimented factory environment where conformity was deemed more important than intelligence or creativity. With these developments, an eminent 20th-century sociologist, David Reisman chronicled a fundamental change in the American national character featuring a shift away from the inner-directed mentality to the other-directed. This shift emerged as the driving force behind the cultural revolution of the 1960s and its numerous implications for modern America.
Up until the middle of the 20th century, few disputed the notion that higher education was to be reserved for the intellectually gifted. The incontrovertibility of this precept came into question in the aftermath of World War II where the GI bill enabled hundreds of war veterans to receive a college education. Accompanying the shift toward the other-directed perspective and the economic hardships of the Great Depression, the egalitarian left made inroads into college campuses. These developments empowered students of limited academic potential to change the collegiate milieu, the meritocratic right struggled to defend their belief that education was to be reserved only for the gifted and the industrious. As the Red Diaper babies reached college age by the 1960s, the era of campus radicalism took root and laid down the foundation for doctrines that characterize the modern left including Marxism, Radical Feminism, and Post-Modernism.
Despite the evident differences between these schools of thought, their underlying assumptions were fundamentally egalitarian rather than meritocratic. Marxism presupposed that there is no such thing as human nature and psychological traits that people attribute to human nature are merely a result of capitalist exploitation. Therefore, the purpose of education is to divest the young minds of bourgeoisie assumptions about genetic differences in ability between people and their connections with positive life outcomes. Building on the Marxist assumption about human nature, feminists maintained that the subjugation of women was also a result of a “capitalist false consciousness” and students should be educated to abandon the belief that there are biological differences between men and women.
Many post-modern theorists did not explicitly borrow the Marxist premise regarding the negation of human nature, yet they embraced the element of relativism inherent in Marxism. Similarly to how their intellectual forebears maintained that capitalism shaped the collective consciousness of society, post-modernists maintained that the prevailing ethos also defines human character and social action. With this rationale, they argued that all human perceptions are shaped by societal phenomena and therefore, all truth is relative. The position of total relativism has been buttressed by the drastic change in the demographic character which made the American society more multi-cultural. As the American milieu became more diverse, it has become impolite for the majority group to insist that newcomers assimilate to the American way of life and renounce all values incompatible with the traditional American worldview.
The proponents of multiculturalism naturally forged an alliance with the academic left and together, they endeavored to achieve a profound transformation of the American collective consciousness. Altogether repudiating the traditional American values of individualism, inner-directedness, and meritocracy, they unabashedly set out to instill the ethic of equality into the American collective consciousness. Almost uniformly, they were hostile to all theories suggesting that groups or individuals differed with respect to talent, ability, achievement or any other measure of merit. To them, the very idea of distinguishing between people based on merit resembled systematic oppression.
By their lights, Blacks scored lower on IQ tests than Whites because the Whites have colonized and oppressed Africa. If a student belonging to a minority group underperformed in school, the problem was never to be attributed to his lack of intelligence or industriousness. Instead, it was to be imputed to his circumstances such as domestic abuse or exposure to neighborhood violence. It goes without saying that these factors were not to be attributed to moral failures of his parents, neighbors or other individuals of minority status. Instead, it was to be ascribed to systematic oppression that condemns all minorities to a miserable existence. On the other hand, if a white student performs well academically, he ought to “check his privileges” instead of feeling proud of himself.
Conspicuously absent from this analysis of life outcomes concerning race is that Asians tend to outperform whites with respect to IQ, academic achievement, professional success and socio-economic status. Even more glaringly missing is the superior performance of high IQ minorities to whites with comparable IQs. What is furthermore problematic with the academic left’s position is that despite the enormous government assistance the impoverished minorities received, a significant portion of them remain penurious and dependent on the state. Moreover, there is little evidence suggesting that merely preventing people from discussing differences in life-outcomes by race bridges the gaps of socioeconomic inequality. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the ethic of equality ameliorates the plights of those whom the left regards as the most disadvantaged.
Bounded rationality typifies all ideological discourses and the left’s position is not an exception to this rule. While they cannot address all of the aforementioned objections to their position, they can try to prevent people from entertaining such ideas. As the ideology of academia became more uniform and intransigent toward the end of the 20th century, the left increasingly concerned itself with controlling the scope of discourse on campuses. The proliferation of the hyper-PC environment across American campuses is the case in point and it bears testament to why universities are becoming places of intellectual coercion and behavioral prohibition.
The academic moral climate is not entirely relativist, relativism is merely one of the two pillars of the modern left’s moral compass. According to Jonathan Haidt’s findings, modern liberals base their morality on two maxims: that of care and fairness. Relativism buttresses the ethic of care as such an orientation urges people to regard all individuals and groups as deserving of compassion, regardless of how perverse and reprehensible they may seem. Fairness as the left defines it, is merely a euphemism for the ethic of equality. The left tends to maintain that because all people have “inherent worth” it is only fair for everyone to live in roughly equal material comfort.
The combination of fairness and care creates a peculiar synthesis of fervent moralism and relativism which characterizes the mindset of the modern PC leftist. With such missionary zeal, the academic establishment maintains that if more people were to accept their point of view, a “better society” would be created under the banner of pluralistic tolerance, multiculturalism, and equality of positive life outcome. Galvanized by these convictions, the Ivory Tower bureaucrats feverishly lobby the Democratic Party for increased government involvement in education. In light of the super-abundance of student loans that any student can access with ease, the proliferation of degree mills with over 90% admission rates and the rapid integration of degree mill curricula into four-year universities, they have clearly succeeded.
Post-modernism heralds the end of the modern tradition in philosophy which was founded on the objectivity of truth. The modern academic PC movement represents the integration of post-modernism not only into the scholarship of humanities but also the general academic milieu. Given that truth is now deemed to be specific to cultural values all of which are deemed equally desirable under the rubric of equality, there is no basis for preservation of rigorous academic standards. Traditional education has always been founded on the concept of intellectual merit and because this ideal can no longer be sustained, academia has entered the post-educational era.
I wonder how long it will be until they finally break with science proper. Humanism is unscientific in the extreme, first of all being derived from Protestant moral memes and secondly being incompatible with well known facts about economic and biological science. The marriage of humanism and scientism is unsustainable, and already their ‘scientistic’ pose is as strained as that of the Creationists they view with such disdain. I can think of not genuinely skeptical person who actually believes in the merits of American academia or the scientific quality of humanist beliefs. Every Humanazis ‘Skeptic’ I’ve ever run across was a witless cultist who used their ignorant faux-education as an emotional club against people who didn’t pander to their faggoty self esteem issues.
Regarding the ‘victims’ – most young people and poor people I know disgust me. They are incredibly lazy, drive their cars to go half a block on a summer day; they refuse to save ANY money whatsoever and then act indignant when expenses occur. I loathe their stupid excuses for their terrible behaviour, and this is a major beef I have with the indignant left, the ‘poor’ people they are defending are not poor, are lazy, and are generally shitty excuses for human beings. I have had long personal acquaitance with poor white people and Mexicans from the South, and these people utterly refuse to be responsible financially, constantly bitch about their jobs – which they slack off and do drugs at all day – and then it’s their boss who’s being a dick when they’re fired.
The whole idea of a ‘working poor’, people who could not reasonably improve their income, is a myth in America, these people are poor because they’re the dumbest, laziest fucktards on the planet, and college kids are among the worst. Unemployed? Yeah, I wouldn’t hire them to mow my lawn, fucking lazy little shits would probably steal something.
Yes, it’s amazing how so many people consider themselves enlightened skeptics when it comes to things they dislike (or are taught to dislike), but fail to apply that skepticism to their own pet theories and ideology. These hardcore, unscientific liberals, if born in the middle east would probably represent the most fanatical adherents of Wahhabi Islam. It is precisely their unscientific, and zealous mindframe that is typical of the religious fanatic and the SJW.
I am strongly interested in ancient history and Biblical criticism, and it is amazing how ignorant of these subjects many Humanazi cultists are. While railing about how full of shit the Bible is they show clear evidence that they’re just repeating talking points and don’t actually understand the textual evidence or origin of the work they pretend to be critiquing. The same goes for their faux-science love, which is really just a love of being seen as science-oriented, like a woman reading a book to see who looks. An actual science would never say that the heliocentric view of Earth was disproven and use it as the go-to example of superstitious views, since actual Relativity means that a heliocentric view is entirely justifiable and can even be worked out with mathematical precision. There are thousands of similar examples, from their need to preserve Jesus as a real person (rather than the fictional character he actually is) to their complete lack of awareness of the origins of liberal humanism as a secularized Christianity. There are few people more ignorant of history than an American leftist. Literally everything they believe is wrong.
“(rather than the fictional character he actually is)”
You know that is just the same kind of cultist stupidity you accuse the SJWs of right? No credible bible scholar from atheists like Bart Ehrman to Christians like N.T. Wright argue that Jesus was fictional. If you start going into the Jesus myth cultists, then your doing exactly the same thing you accuse SJWs and humanists of doing.
Your reflexive ingorance of religion is just the kind of close minded stupidity I’ve seen in SJWs. Christianity has given the West freedom of conscience, the scientific revolution, the market revolution, human rights, preserved classical knowledge. Stirnerite nihilism has given us a big fat 0, except for a few misguided terrorists in the late 19th century.
Also the edgy egoism stick might be find for an angsty teenager, but please it just looks embarrassing for an adult.
It’s funny how you and John in criticizing SJWs are doing exactly the same things they do. Saying stupid BS about things (religion) you don’t know anything about is the ultimate SJW move.
Bart Ehrmen is not a credible scholar, nor are the faggots who do ‘Biblical Archeology’. Israel never even existed, much less its fictional Messiah.
Oh, and fuck yourself with a knife, you cunt.
However, I am not as much of a misanthrope. I think the societal values based on vapid consumer culture and an education system, as described above, designed to make everyone mindless workers instead of critical thinkers, deserves a lot of the blame with the type and quality of citizens that are produced. I think it’s a mixture of both the environment, I described, plus their own self-determinism and inherent qualities (like intelligence), Georg describes. I’m not letting them off the hook, but I do blame the elites who shape the educational system, and the likes of the scum record producers who promote crack-dealing, ignoramus rappers to the masses, and our media (everything from Hollywood to mainstream media “News.”) as well. I think we all share a little of the blame.
You’re making the mistake Nietzsche pointed out, of thinking the disease made them sick.
Americans are like this because they are bad people. It is a constitutional flaw, not an affliction. Most people are bad people. The reason a shiftless, acultured hedonia of herdish memes and emotion-based everything (from politics to diet) works so well precisely because that is all most people are, stupid pieces of shit who will never be anything else. Like Stirner said, most people are not rational because they can not be, and talking about ‘if all men were rational’ is on the level of fishes being wishes; they aren’t, they’re not going to be any time in the forseeable future.
Even when American culture was much better it was because there was a slightly superior elite and a mix of pressures producing it, the people still seem to have been the same ignorant, Puritanical whack-jobs they are now – I mean, that’s how we got here.
For instance, in Japan there are schools where there are minimal paid workers. Everyday, the kids and teachers clean the entire school, and at lunch the students serve the food. Now I’m not a leftist. I agree with Dr. Rushton that IQ’s are more or less genetically fixed, but I do think having schools set up where on every single school day from kindergarten to 12th grade, you had the responsibility to clean the entire school, the average persons, upon graduation, work ethic would increase. I think if you based education upon science, logic and reason, instead of Horace Mannian corporate brainwashing, on one hand, to the idealistic, but utterly unscientific liberal, on the other, we would have a different citizenry. This idea that everyone needs to go to college, espoused as high up as Obama, is ludicrous, however.
I see absolutely no evidence that there is any cultural benefit from popular education or mass literacy. I do not have any interest in institutionalized schools, they are places for cults to indoctrinate little shitheads, not places of learning.
Yes, I agree to an extent. There is always going to be a need for a hierarchy. IQ and many other human characteristics are always going to be a bell curve, regardless of how much you educate society, with individuals in the top, middle, and bottom. And that is unchangeable. You can’t take someone from the bottom of the IQ bell curve and, through education, move them to the top. I agree institutionalized schools are mainly places for indoctrination. As long as you have millions of kids following the same school curriculum, it is going to be to tempting for someone with access to shape that curriculum to promote their own interests.
But what solution do you propose?
My solution is that this is the wrong game. Managing a herd of apes is not the business of superior men. We should stop telling our best to waste their lives on ‘activism’ which only ever could work in tiny tribes, and never will work in modern mass societies which are composed of an increasingly number of resentful nobodies. ‘Human society’, as including the mass of homo sapiens and their offspring in the future, can not be ‘saved’ and does not deserve to be. Stop identifying with it, stop treating its mutilated slaves as victims when they are the ones who chopped their own feet off to avoid the temptation of running. ‘Saving the world’ is not a thing, or a good idea, or going to happen. Activism, politics, etc. are themselves based on bad premises. I suggest the mountaintops. It’s lonely, but the air is clean. As long as you play with apes you’ll get smeared with shit.
If anything, the elite should disassociate themselves from their families and native lands and form willfully inegalitarian and anti-mass organizations. People should actually do what people accuse the Fascists of doing.
Yes, it is true that much of the masses are pretty stupid. There are many far wiser than I, but still even at a young age I saw through the lies, stupidity, and propaganda of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, PC liberalism, and religion, within minutes regarding the first three. Yet Fox News was the number one rated ‘News’ channel for many years, and Rush has millions of followers and has been on air for like 20 years. How can people be so stupid? How does the illogical nature and stupidity of PC not just jump out at you, immediately? How can people believe Fox News, that all of the worlds problems are because of one person, Obama, and the Republicans are just perfect angles? Or the PC notion that some idiot with a 70 IQ could somehow be transformed into an individual with a 130 IQ? Or that all racism is bad, yet it’s OK to be racist against all white people? And that’s believed by white people. That’s doublethink; You are against racism, but are simultaneously are racist against yourself. Maybe your right, there are a large number who cannot be saved.
“We should stop telling our best to waste their lives on ‘activism’ which only ever could work in tiny tribes”
That is precisely what many anarchists want, right? To break this massive country down into more manageable, smaller communities or tribes.
I know one solution, that many unnecessarily cringe at, which was popular in the early 20th century, is eugenics. If done intelligently and humanely, we could shift the IQ bell curve to the right. If the average IQ increased by 10 points, we would have 1000s of more Nietzsches and Einsteins, and 1000s less in the mentally retarded category at the extreme ends of the bell curve. Even in the middle this would have a huge impact, as the average IQ goes from 100 to 110. People think this is ludicrous, but don’t seem to mind that dysgenics is occurring right now as we speak.
“That is precisely what many anarchists want, right? To break this massive country down into more manageable, smaller communities or tribes.”
While it’s an idea – maybe even a possible one, with some Hezbollah-type disruption of calcified ideological power structures – it’s not one that can be deliberately pushed by conscientious individuals. That is to say, while one might well go along with Hezbollah’s Florida branch, it’s going to be Hezbollah – not Ancapistan. Human progress in government and mass society is largely by accident. And, speaking of eugenics, there’s a pretty good argument that the black plague killing off all the indigent, slave-minded poor people is exactly why Europe became so wealthy and dynamic when it did.
I support eugenics for the same reason I support any kind of logical application of technology, but here you run into the problem that the masses fear anything that stands to put them (relatively) worse off, even if only in a psychological or positioning sense. As more an more people are being born of less and less quality – for reasons ranging from economics to politics to religion (only stupid people who believe in magic have 9 kids) – there will be ever increasing popular resistance to anything that acknowledges the fact that most of them are shit.
A deliberately anti-egalitarian elite which does not feel the need to justify itself to the masses is just barely conceivable, the question is whether they would survive the backlash from several billion whining nobodies and their marginally superior masters.
“There are many far wiser than I, but still even at a young age I saw through the lies, stupidity, and propaganda of … and religion, within minutes regarding the first three. ”
If it takes someone minutes to reject religion they obviously were not thinking.
“How can people be so stupid?”
I dunno maybe the same you can be so stupid.
Again why all this gay faggotry, if you haven’t even taken the to to understand religion (what you really mean is Christianity) then your rejection of it is as substantive as the SJW rejection of IQ differences.
You believe in the American republic, creationism and are an anti-capitalist. One or two of those I could stomach, but you’re just a stupid fucking republicunt troll. Get AIDS, nigger.
“You believe in the American republic, creationism and are an anti-capitalist. One or two of those I could stomach, but you’re just a stupid fucking republicunt troll. Get AIDS, nigger.”
If anyone needed proof that Atheists are dumbasses here it is. Nuff said. If anyone says I believe in the American republic he is blind, deaf and dumb. Since I have stated on numerous points on ATS that the founding fathers were luciferian freemasons.
Love to see how logical atheists are. Stop signalling SJW nobody cares. I call up anita sarkeesian for you so you can hang out. This comment really is a stellar example of SJW warrior rhetoric I would think I was on Jezebel, or HuffPost or Salon, maybe you would be more comfortable there?
Still see that you are butt-hurt for sucking? Why do you stirnerite cowards never resort to violence? A real stirnerite would be a terrorist that would make the cops crap their pants. Just like the illegalists you can read about them on wiki, if it won’t tax your intellect to much. If we measure up what a tiny insignificant and sad little man you are to the beautiful vistas of Western Christian civilization, I guess we would only as a piece of dried of coprolite in the latrine of a hooker.
On a serious not this really proves that you are just an SJW. You react in an irrational and emotion manner just like Annita, you call people names just like Annita and you spread BS just like Annita, did I find here secret brother?
PS
Given that you believe in the fairy-tale of evolution, please tell me how Pastor’s first Law of Biology (bio-genesis) is auto-magically revoked when abiogenesis (oops spontaneous generation) occurs. But I forgot you are a bronze age troglodyte who believes in pre-scientific notions of life magically arising from inorganic material. My bad.
I stopped arguing with Creationists in 9th grade, go eat a dead man’s dick, you fucking zombie worshipper.
Christianity would be great if it wasn’t for all the fucktards that take it literally.
Boy you really are triggered, SJW.
“I stopped arguing with Creationists in 9th grade, go eat a dead man’s dick, you fucking zombie worshipper.
Christianity would be great if it wasn’t for all the fucktards that take it literally.”
So you stopped thinking when you entered 9th graded? You got beaten that badly, I feel sorry for you. You did know that Eugenie Scott admitted that Creationists often beat evolutionists in debates and that is why she argued against having those debates at all:
“During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of “good” debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually “to defend good science” or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can’t figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution — and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.”
I guess, like her, you got tiered of loosing.
Then why are you arguing with me SJW?
So I guess this very triggered SJW troglodyte, do you haunt tumblr?, stopped thinking in 9th grade, believes in pre-scientific bronze age notions on the origin of life and beliefs in freak unhistorical notions on the historicity of Jesus Christ. Oh and does not know the difference between a zombie and a bodily Resurrection. History, science and philosophy one giant F.
Let us make a logical test. The premise is that Hummel is a dumbass.
With a valid modus ponens, I hope Latin words are not too big for your vocabulary, I shall prove it.
1 If Hummel is a dumbass, he will respond to me.
2 Hummel responded to me.
3 Hummel is a dumbass.
Since this argument is logical valid, i.e. its structure is logically valid. The next question is are the premises true? The truth of the premises can hardly be doubted since he (1) stopped thinking in 9th grade, (2) debates with people whom he said he does not debate anymore with and (3) does not know anything about the relevant fields he is speaking about.
So let us be clear if Mr. Hummel responds he will have proven to be a dumbass by my sound modus ponens argument.
So as to avoid any confusion, the same confusion that Mr. Parrott, had this is a reductio ad absurdum. Using over the top language and arguments to show the absurdity of someone else. So please don’t have anyone claim I’m being or an such nonsense. I was reducting Hummels position to the aburd in terms he high understand.
And Hummel, its been boring, I’m pretty much done for know since the lower regions of the whores latrine from whence you came stinks to much.
jibba jabba jibba jabba jibba jabba.
Fuck of, nigger, I am only going to downvote and refuse to read anything you say to me.
I sorry your whore screwed you over, don’t blame me.
I’m waiting for you to shut up already.
Just shut up SJW. If you answer me you are an SJW and don’t mean what you say. But then again faggots don’t tell the truth. Also you smell like a dirty whore make like a tree and leave.
Good Lord. You are still in the 9th grade, aren’t you? Do you actually read what you type? Or are you seriously this stupid? Go back to Facebook, you half-assed nihilist. The only reason you can be this anti-social is because you are a complete nobody. Or perhaps you are just venting your frustration with the fact you are a social outcast by strapping on your internet muscles? Why don’t you go out and shoot some people? Stop acting “high-minded” with your talk of “good” and “bad.” Blow someone away. But, we both know you won’t do that. You are a coward. You won’t do it. No balls.
My guess is that you got a hair up your ass over Christianity because some decent human being told you its immoral to have anal sex or bang horses. Stop pretending you care about science and logic. Your responses show otherwise. Just tell everyone you’re a filthy sodomite who gets his jollies off with animals. Then we can dispense with any false notion that what you have to say matters.
Only a backwards moron SJW thinks he has taken the battlefield after fleeing from it. Return to your mental circle jerk. We are finished with you now.
Although I find it totally absurd for a number of reasons, I don’t have much of a problem with ‘Christianity’, I just think the half-witted, botch-job bullshit pack of lies about their own dead cult American Protestants insist people take seriously is annoying. Christians are arguably irrelevant in American culture and politics, so I don’t see them as much of an obstacle as, say, Ghey Rites rhetoric or the addiction to welfare that non-urban populations have. Christianity was probably part of the origin of ‘the problem’ but now it’s more of a personal annoyance at people saying crazy shit anyone who has read Dutch radical critics or comparative religion studies knows, i.e. Christianity is not true and the things in the Bible didn’t happen. If they just went to their churches and worshipped their Ghost Grandpa I might even like to attend some Mass in a cynical luxuriant way, but what I can’t stand is Apologetics, which is also known as being a bald-faced liar and hypocrite. Gresham Machen I can respect, Ray Comfort is a fucking gaytard.
My response to Protestants and their cult beliefs is based on actually understanding a little bit about their intellectual history and the nature of their fetish book, wherein it is obvious they are making mixed up arguments for axe-grinding reasons and that they are so detached from real scholarship that it’s like debating economics with a Yankee socialist.
Anyway, Todd Lewis can fuck himself with a knife, his podcast was gay and so is his Republican masturbation. Fuck people that vote and wank it to Uhmurica.
Also, fuck your egalitarian fantasy that I am obliged to explain myself to stupid cunts on the internet. I give a shit what you think or whether anyone ‘won’ some fucking contest you made up. I’m not here to inform you or enrich your life, nigger.
Can’t hear you over the sound of your imaginary god not existing.
Regarding the unwillingness to acknowledge the low-quality of the average human: there are frequent ragefests on the internet when people complain about the dumbing down of video games or movies, the cultural ignorance and laziness of the modern typical individual; there is a storm of NeoLiberal rage against criticizing this stuff as stupid, shallow and aimed at the stupid and shallow; it’s obviously true, and it makes up the half-admitted development strategy of many entertainment industries, but mentioning this on a video game website will get you hoardes of angry commentors who insist that their tastes are perfectly valid (which may be true, but they’re also perfectly stupid). The news rags frequently put out excuses for college kids and millenials being lazy pieces of shit, I have seen a couple of them arguing that people are ‘too busy’, when as far as I can tell most of them don’t have shit to do and jack off on their phones all day while pretending to work.
You are the most pathetic excuse for a human. I would be absolutely flattered if you reply to me, just so I can observe whether you’re still such a piece of shit 3 years later. Enjoy believing you’ll just rot away into darkness when you die?
First of all, I am very disappointed with this website. I was hoping anarchists, with an interest of creating a better world once the empire collapses, would be on here regularly discussing and debating how anarchist communities would form, function, and sustain themselves while maintaining a level of freedom, health, and prosperity unknown to most alive today. I have seen none of the sort. Usually, I am the only one commenting on here, besides Georg who tells me people are too stupid and it won’t work (which he may be right), and you who come on here hurling insults and throwing a hissy-fit anytime religion is brought up… so, you want a creationism debate… ah, OK, but lets keep it civil.
1. Contrary to what you might believe scientists are actually doing a lot of research to figure out how life originated by natural processes, and none of them break any laws of science. Here is a brief overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
Besides, just because science does not have an answer to exactly how all of the billions of phenomena work does not automatically mean God did it. That is the God of the gaps fallacy, and the gaps are getting smaller everyday.
2. Many SJWs may believe evolution based upon faith, I on the other hand do not. People who are familiar with the nuances of the scientific process will tell you they do not ‘believe’ in evolution, rather they accept the evidence (the mountains upon mountains upon mountains of evidence) gathered and analyzed through the scientific method. They do not believe in the scientific theory of evolution, just like they do not believe in the scientific theory of gravitation, or the atomic theory. All of the evidence concludes that evolution is true.
I normally would never source a wikipedia article, but for some reason the wikipedia articles on evolution are excellent (even Evo Biologist Richard Dawkins said so). This is an article summarizing the evidence for evolution. Some of the most convincing and easy to see are vestigial and homologous features. For instance, the whale and dolphin, which are mammals, evolved from land creatures, which is why they have lungs and not gills, have fully developed hand bones inside their fins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#/media/File:Evolution_pl.png
that’s right all of carpels and metacarpals, ulna and radius are in a singular fin, and serve absolutely no purpose. They are simply DNA remnants of animals they evolved from who did make use of those bones on land.
In addition to all of the bones in your arm, wrist, and hand being inside a singular whale fin they have a pelvis and hind legs which also serves absolutely no purpose.
Also, read the part on embryology. That is fascinating. In fact, read the entire article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
As far as evolutionary biologists getting crushed by creationists that has not been my experience at all. Here is Lawrence Krauss landing stammering defeats to creationists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTfhbQd-UeU&index=1&list=PLE-VXAOAxjMdv-Pn_Hp0Um0bvkQWJvF8g
Here is Krauss schooling prominent discovery institute creationist ‘scholar’ Michael Behe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OJWxrZRH_k
It’s important to note that just because evolution is true, does not mean God does not exist. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but I still think Life is very mysterious and there may be more to it than meets the eye. The fact that we are even here at all, and that this universe exists at all, irregardless of whether science explains it all in the future, to me points to the possibility that their may be something beyond science. However, I do not believe Christianity nor creationism are true, but I still consider myself somewhat of an agnostic in a way because I do think there is an ethereal quality to life. I think if any religion or philosophy is closer to understanding it, I would have to say I think it is the Eastern philosophies.
how long does it take a comment to appear on here?
I’m trying to give you a legitimate, and hopefully level-headed debate on creationism, but it’s not appearing.
“I’m trying to give you a legitimate, and hopefully level-headed debate on creationism, but it’s not appearing.”
Actually you have done no such thing yet. I haven’t even responded to your yet bro, don’t jump to conclusions.
If you really want to John let me know. In fact if your really want such a debate contact me at todd.lewis1987 and I will respond.
That was on skype my bad.
I don’t understand why these comments are appearing, but the long, sourced piece I wrote didn’t. Maybe, because I linked to outside websites it has to be approved by ATS.
Some times url links take time to be approved.
on what site do I enter todd.lewis1987?
Skype. It was a Skype contact. Peace bro.
maybe if i break it into pieces.
First of all, I am very disappointed with this website. I was hoping anarchists, with an interest of creating a better world once the empire collapses, would be on here regularly discussing and debating how anarchist communities would form, function, and sustain themselves while maintaining a level of freedom, health, and prosperity unknown to most alive today. I have seen none of the sort. Usually, I am the only one commenting on here, besides Georg who tells me people are too stupid and it won’t work (which he may be right), and you who come on here hurling insults anytime religion is brought up… so, you want a creationism debate… ah, OK, but lets keep it civil.
1. Contrary to what you might believe scientists are actually doing a lot of research to figure out how life originated by natural processes, and none of them break any laws of science. Here is a brief overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
Besides, just because science does not have an answer to exactly how all of the billions of phenomena work does not automatically mean God did it. That is the God of the gaps fallacy, and the gaps are getting smaller everyday.
I don’t have skype and the rest of my argument is not appearing for some reason.
2. Many SJWs may believe evolution based upon faith, I on the other hand do not. People who are familiar with the nuances of the scientific process will tell you they do not ‘believe’ in evolution, rather they accept the evidence (the mountains upon mountains upon mountains of evidence) gathered and analyzed through the scientific method. They do not believe in the scientific theory of evolution, just like they do not believe in the scientific theory of gravitation, or the atomic theory. All of the evidence concludes that evolution is true.
I normally would never source a wikipedia article, but for some reason the wikipedia articles on evolution are excellent (even Evo Biologist Richard Dawkins said so). This is an article summarizing the evidence for evolution. Some of the most convincing and easy to see are vestigial and homologous features. For instance, the whale and dolphin, which are mammals, evolved from land creatures, which is why they have lungs and not gills, have fully developed hand bones inside their fins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#/media/File:Evolution_pl.png
that’s right all of carpels and metacarpals, ulna and radius are in a singular fin, and serve absolutely no purpose. They are simply DNA remnants of animals they evolved from who did make use of those bones on land.
In addition to all of the bones in your arm, wrist, and hand being inside a singular whale fin they have a pelvis and hind legs which also serves absolutely no purpose.
Also, read the part on embryology. That is fascinating. In fact, read the entire article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
2. Many SJWs may believe evolution based upon faith, I on the other hand do not. People who are familiar with the nuances of the scientific process will tell you they do not ‘believe’ in evolution, rather they accept the evidence (the mountains upon mountains upon mountains of evidence) gathered and analyzed through the scientific method. They do not believe in the scientific theory of evolution, just like they do not believe in the scientific theory of gravitation, or the atomic theory. All of the evidence concludes that evolution is true.
I normally would never source a wikipedia article, but for some reason the wikipedia articles on evolution are excellent (even Evo Biologist Richard Dawkins said so). This is an article summarizing the evidence for evolution. Some of the most convincing and easy to see are vestigial and homologous features. For instance, the whale and dolphin, which are mammals, evolved from land creatures, which is why they have lungs and not gills, have fully developed hand bones inside their fins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#/media/File:Evolution_pl.png
Well the rest of my argument disappeared.
If you’re editing this, please put my full argument on here. You can delete my other evolution arguments if you care.
I believe my behavior toward Hummel was not fitting. I apologize to him for letting myself be so provoked.
Hummel needed knocked down off his poorly-constructed pedestal.
To avoid repetition the same goes for John as well.
apology accepted Todd. I understand it is hard when people criticize something near and dear to your heart. As I stated in my full creationist rebuttal, I do not consider myself to be a total atheist or agnostic, by whomever’s definition you go by. As I said, even if science eventually explains the origins of life, and the origins of the Universe-before, during, and after the Big Bang- in scientific, reductionist terms, I still think there will always be a mystery surrounding why we are here at all, and why a universe or multiverse exists at all. I am not an SJW and I do not hate Christians. My aunt is a nun, whose order has done many great things for the world. They have a permanent residence in Guatemala, where they teach the local aboriginal population to grow crops, and cope with the devastation caused by the (US trained and equipped) oppressive government.