didnt you make an entire thread just for that? or was it 2 threads?
here is the recent one http://sociopath-community.com/topic/2014-04-28/how-to-find-children
you yourself said you want kids to reply, aka you taunt them
there are plenty of reasons to troll. the fact that you reply to trolls is the reason they continue to troll you. and you can be hilarious when trolled too.
by EtzelRight on target. There's only so much you can go by reading books. You cannot get wise by just reading. If you lack the necessary experiences you won't even be able to understand wtf you're reading. In fact, my sig in psychforums was a quote by Lichtenberg saying just that:
A book is a mirror: if an ape looks into it an apostle is hardly likely to look out. We have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. He who understands the wise is wise already.
And he's not alone when saying that. Nietzsche:
For what one lacks access to from experience one will have no ear.
Past a certain point, reading books is even DETRIMENTAL to your intelligence, since you are not even thinking by yourself, but merely thinking what OTHERS have thought (i.e. you are immersed in alien thought) and if you lack the necessary experiences you are bound to misinterpret and falsify the meaning of the books, thereby rendering yourself even more stupid than you were before reading them. So philosophy is not for everyone.
Well said. I'm glad I'm not the only person that is able to see the obvious and the simplicity of life. You will be that wise man people will climb the mountain to seek knowledge. It sickens me to see how many people are so out of touch with reality. This generation have blinders on and can't see the obvious.
racism and discrimination is the thing that all liberals use to attract voters and defend their views, everyone is so concerned with "not offending" anybody now. The spineless culture of america that has been designed by radicals since the 1960's is now in full effect and everyone in media and the public are more concerned with being politically correct than making their actual views known.
its funny to see people bicker and fight about black this white that asian this...
lets look at the facts? (and no, I'm not going to give you any stupid made up/inflated statistics)
why do blacks cause majority of crime in america, despite being a "minority" group?
why is africa in such turmoil? why was the genocides in liberia and sierra leone and darfur (genocides involving islam) always talked about amongst people who just wanted to throw money at the problem but nobody really cared enough to do anything about it anyways? Theres a genocide in south africa going on right now! and its black on white, has anybody seen anything in the news about this? of course not.
people want to compare the north vs the south, the american civil war didn't happen because of slavery. Sure we treated blacks like shit, but they were slaves in africa before they were slaved in america. Black africans sold us black slaves and slavery wasn't even looked down upon at the time anyways. France had more slavery than the united states ever did.
Now years later, america is afflicted with "white guilt" always hearing stories of blacks being made out to be the victim, its been over a hundred years, get your fucking act together and stop blaming everyone for your problems. There are black only scholarships for school, programs like affirmative action, cases highlighted whenever the media can spin a white on black violence story, but never reversed.
quit bitching about fucking racism and stop being a bunch of pussies. there is no organized racism that the majority of your imbeciles can even comprehend in america anymore anyways.
If you are interested in seeing what real racism in america looks like….look at the black panthers and the welfare program. Welfare perpetuates the "nigger" problem in america, kids grow up in a neighborhood where its completely acceptable to live off the government with no shame whatsoever. There is never an incentive to work or do better, because you already live in a "payment-less house" and you receive checks in the mail that you can cash and spend on whatever you want, thus keeping blacks in "their rightful place"
im not sitting here saying any of this is right, but fuck…you people that fall victim to this system of unfounded beliefs are fucking morons. This is why we have tv news anchors like rachel maddow, who can talk about all the racism in america day after day. Its cuz you ham slappers believe it and don't contain any sort of ability or notion to think outside the box. You have the ability to get on this website, and complain about problems in the world…but you don't have the ability to fucking GOOGLE something? maybe read both sides of the argument? make your own decision.
Racism, just like gay marriage and abortion are just ploys to keep people from thinking about the real issues in america. everyone is so quick to jump to the "racism is bad" conversation, when your freedoms are being taking right out from under your feet.
just my unorganized 2cents. don't bother grading my grammar or punctuation or w/e, if thats the first thing on your mind just kill yourself
Why do you think it is that most of my posts are me taunting someone ? If you were to go back and read it all you would see I was responding to a sarcastic post. I never taunt anyone that replys to any of my posts that are mature. I don't troll people, people troll me. Educate yourself before you jump to conclusions.
I only taunt the trolls. Because they are cowards that is why they troll. If they can't beat you mentaly they will make a puppet and troll you.
by whoameye
by Gypsy
by EtzelOne of the reasons I'm so good at thinking is actually the fact that I BARELY READ ANY BOOKS.I think that entire post can be summed up with this quote.
You can't realy be that narrow minded to think that only people who read books are intelligent. If you kept a kid confined to a room with little to no human contact and all he did was read books for 18 years. Sure the kid would be very book smart. But he would be worthless to society. He wouldn't be able to do even the simplest jobs. He would be in a since mentally handicap. He wouldn't even be able to be a walmart greeter.
Use some common sense Gypsy. Look outside the box from time to time. There is so much more to life than being book smart. I have a GED and Because I have 3 times the life experiences you do. I would destroy you in overal knowledge.
Okaaay then... First of all, I don't believe you are for real. Like I said on the other thread, I think some of the stuff you say is just not what Jason the badass biker would say even in joking. I've heard alien conspiracy theories with less holes in them than the backstory you gave yourself, and your infamous writing style is at times inconsistent. I think you are a troll, or have developed a well-crafted persona for the forums, which really amounts to the same thing.
Nevertheless, I am bored so will respond to what you wrote. Obviously I don't think that a person can gain intelligence or wisdom simply from reading alone, that is a retarded theory and nowhere did I or anyone else actually say that. But yes, I do think that people who don't read are unintelligent, or at the very least narrow-minded. The question really is, why would you not read? Who would dismiss thousands of years of human knowledge and experience? Either someone who is too stupid and naïve to understand its value, or a narrow-minded bigot whose self-esteem would collapse if their world view was seriously challenged. Obviously this reading needs to be supported with real-life experiences, but it is possible to find the time for both.
Despite being almost 20 years older than me, I think you probably have about half the life experience. Most of this 'experience' of yours was gained either in prison or epically failing at stuff, whereas I've been out succeeding in the real world. You were probably well chuffed to discover AsPD as it finally gave you an excuse for your miserable failure of a life: 'it's not me, it's the disorder'. Then you come on here and realised that there were people dealing with similar issues to what you are, and had just as tough childhoods, yet still manage to make a success of life. Or at least not as big a failure as you are. So you moan and bitch about kids and intelligence, because really you're feeling insecure that people half your age have their shite figured out more than you ever have done.
How much have you travelled, whoameye? What different jobs have you done? What was your longest relationship? Have you ever done anything in your life that could actually be considered a success? If there was an objective way of measuring this 'overall knowledge', I would more than destroy you.
You effing narrow minded americans just have to make everything about america and your effing politics, don't you... :D
(Ok that was meant to be a joke, a sarcastic generalization of americans... You probably read just the title and not the whole thread so don't get pissed, I wasn't attacking your post)
Your just mad because I made you look stupid. As far as who I am. That is something you are going to have to answer for yourself. I have told you. If you are having troubles dealing with that then you are going to have to work that out. You and a few others are the ones who labeled me the biker badass. I have never refered to myself as a bad ass. Your insequerates have made you assume this. The only way you can no for sure who I am is to meet me in real life. We both know you are to scared to do something like that.
If you are so intelligent. Why are you so infatuated with me? I know why you are. You need to look at yourself and answer that question. By your comments I can tell you are very young and are insecure. Why else would you label me a badass and question who I realy am.
I don't dislike or like you. You haven't impressed me enough for me to label you. Its not hard to convince the other children in here that you are smart. It's the older mature people who see the real you.
If you want to know me then talk like a adult. If not, keep talking like a insecure kid and I will continue treating you like one.
You're starting to grow on me a bit Etzel, you're a funny guy.
by EtzelFor the 26780461th time: order of rank will depend on the criteria you choose to guide your comparisons. But comparisons themselves will happen regardless of you being AWARE of the criteria or not. If you choose a red fruit in detriment of a green one, there must lie somewhere in the depths of your brain some sort of criteria that led you to CHOOSING the red fruit. Whether this happens unconsciously or not is irrelevant to what I'm saying: if done unconsciously it means you are doing it by instinct (and will most likely make a good evaluation); if done consciously it means you are using your brain (i.e. you are thinking) to select the criteria on which you are basing your evaluations (and will most likely make a shitty evaluation (because you suck at thinking)).
So, which one is superior: the red fruits or the green ones? If you are evaluating them aesthetically, then perhaps the red ones are superior. If nutritionally, then you better contract a qualified biologist or nutritionist or whatever to make the appropriate measurements and experiments, and for him to draw all the conclusions from such study. Above all, be prepared to pay him GOOD money, since if you want this study of his to be on target or anywhere near it you must have him collect A GREAT DEAL OF DATA... But if in the end your little scientist friend can draw the conclusion that "green fruits are nutritionally superior to red ones" then bravo! I'd expect him to win a Nobel prize, and he'd have to thank you for financing his study!
The main point was that red fruits/green fruits, this race/that race are made up of individual, different components, and you can't have any "criteria" that applies to all their components. Like, pomegranates are nutritionally superior to white grapes but red watermelon is nutritionally inferior to kiwi... Get it? That's why the little scientist needs groups way more narrow than green or red fruits to draw any conclusions that the other little scientists can take seriously...
Lumping all the people of a same race together is the sort of mistake that only someone who hasn't met enough people of each race or hasn't paid enough attention to their differences can make.
I do agree with you on one thing. If you "choose" a race to be superior over another, there is smth in your brain that motivates you to do so, despite it being illogical. What exactly made you choose brad pitt and the black savage as representatives of their races? Why didn't you choose Neil DeGrasse Tyson and this person:
Because of your own bias that you, as a white person, belong to the "superior" group. That's anything but rational, you wannabe intellectual smartypants. Behind your ideas, just like behind Nietzsche's or Hitler's or others, are deep seated emotional issues/frustrations/inflated self-importance/fuck knows what other psychological reasons that motivate you to come up with unrealistic but convenient perspectives on life. Much like TK likes to believe she's this dangerous alfa predator and not the vulnerable single mother that she really is. Minds are tricky like that. You're still young (I really hope), I suggest you get to know yours better.
by EtzelFirst of all: fuck off. You are disrespecting the greatest genius that has ever lived among us. Whoever calls the greatest thinker of mankind a "nerd" does not deserve to hold a conversation with me (who am eternally grateful to Nietzsche for his works despite being on my way to surpass him).
Secondly: of course it is, you imbecile. I am MAKING these definitions. That's what the philosopher does, for crying out loud. And that's what you do in this very same paragraph, for christsake: "power is the ability to get what you want, nothing more complicated than that". So going by this definition then the Sun isn't powerful at all, since the Sun LACKS A BRAIN... WHICH IS SOMETHING MANDATORY TO HAVE FOR AN OBJECT TO WANT SOMETHING... That's what your retarded definitions lead us to: nowhere. So either get me a proper fucking definition of power, or shut the fuck up.
Oh haha, sorry for picking on your idol, buddy. Look, you overthinkers tend to get lost in your lofty world of ideas. You get so caught up in a web of thoughts, go from one idea to the next and fabricate enough connections without realistic feedback that you often lose contact with reality altogether. Philosophy is a bit like a drug for you little philosophical nerds, you get addicted enough to take your feet off the ground and spin yourselves inside pretty cocoons of beliefs that render you blind to stuff everyone else can see.
Speaking of details that get you off track, you're troubled that you can't apply my definition of power to the fucking sun. Why would you want a definition of power that includes both things with brain and things without... How about, power is this for things with brains, that for things without a brain. Why this tendency to lump different things together again and become imprecise with your definition, and compromise the real meaning of it... Can't you cope with views that are not so fucking oversimplified?
by EtzelYou tell me this in the very same thread (and two posts after!) a bored and insecure wacko posts a picture of his penis and some other idiotic fagot replies with "om nom nom". A conversation on pair with the most mature posts this site's ever seen, no doubt!
Those were trolls fucking about Etzel. They were fully aware of the immaturity of their behavior and even counting on it to get reactions. You, on the other hand, gave me the impression that you actually meant that shit you wrote. In my book, people who are blind about their immaturity are more immature than people who are aware of it...
If you lack critical thinking (i.e. if you don't think) while reading Nietzsche, you will not understand a thing. You will falsify and misinterpret his message and will make yourself stupid. His works take time to decipher. True understanding in general takes time; good reading is good rumination. You must have time to understand, contemplate and draw and connect all the consequences. Not to mention the desire, which is the most important thing a thinker needs. The desire to understand is fundamental here. But let's hear what Nietzsche has to say about ADHD monkeys having learned to read:
The worst readers.— The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few things they can use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the whole.
I am 100% sure no one bothered reading those Schopenhauer essays I linked earlier, so, of course, I'll link some more and post some quotes, so we can easily see what the man has to say about reading, without the need to expend any energy clicking any links and without reading too many paragraphs in a row and draining our precious eyes too much:
Reading and learning are things that anyone can do of his own free will; but not so thinking. Thinking must be kindled, like a fire by a draught; it must be sustained by some interest in the matter in hand. This interest may be of purely objective kind, or merely subjective. The latter comes into play only in things that concern us personally. Objective interest is confined to heads that think by nature; to whom thinking is as natural as breathing; and they are very rare. This is why most men of learning show so little of it.
It is incredible what a different effect is produced upon the mind by thinking for oneself, as compared with reading. It carries on and intensifies that original difference in the nature of two minds which leads the one to think and the other to read. What I mean is that reading forces alien thoughts upon the mind — thoughts which are as foreign to the drift and temper in which it may be for the moment, as the seal is to the wax on which it stamps its imprint. The mind is thus entirely under compulsion from without; it is driven to think this or that, though for the moment it may not have the slightest impulse or inclination to do so.
But when a man thinks for himself, he follows the impulse of his own mind, which is determined for him at the time, either by his environment or some particular recollection. The visible world of a man’s surroundings does not, as reading does, impress a single definite thought upon his mind, but merely gives the matter and occasion which lead him to think what is appropriate to his nature and present temper. So it is, that much reading deprives the mind of all elasticity; it is like keeping a spring continually under pressure. The safest way of having no thoughts of one’s own is to take up a book every moment one has nothing else to do. It is this practice which explains why erudition makes most men more stupid and silly than they are by nature, and prevents their writings obtaining any measure of success. They remain, in Pope’s words:
For ever reading, never to be read!
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/lit/chapter4.html
And:
Students, and learned persons of all sorts and every age, aim as a rule at acquiring information rather than insight. They pique themselves upon knowing about everything — stones, plants, battles, experiments, and all the books in existence. It never occurs to them that information is only a means of insight, and in itself of little or no value; that it is his way of thinking that makes a man a philosopher. When I hear of these portents of learning and their imposing erudition, I sometimes say to myself: Ah, how little they must have had to think about, to have been able to read so much! And when I actually find it reported of the elder Pliny that he was continually reading or being read to, at table, on a journey, or in his bath, the question forces itself upon my mind, whether the man was so very lacking in thought of his own that he had to have alien thought incessantly instilled into him; as though he were a consumptive patient taking jellies to keep himself alive. And neither his undiscerning credulity nor his inexpressibly repulsive and barely intelligible style — which seems like of a man taking notes, and very economical of paper — is of a kind to give me a high opinion of his power of independent thought.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/lit/chapter4.html
So all the greatest genius of mankind are saying the same thing: spending all your days reading is a sure way to make yourself a braindead imbecile. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and me: we are all saying you are better off leaving your room and trying to actually accomplish something. When the time comes for you to think, you will think. No need to force any of this.
At the end of the day, and to come full circle on this, writing merely simulates thoughts. When you read something you are only ever getting a glimpse of what the author thought. It's always up to you to USE your brain to extract (i.e. to create) the meaning of the text, by "placing yourself" in the author's feet and trying to recreate (by using the words and their relationships) what he SAW, what he FELT. For only THAT is real. The text itself is meaningless: the words by themselves signify nothing as Derrida showed time and again. You can take any word you want from the dictionary and make it mean anything. You can even make this very post of mine mean THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what I'm trying to explain. But anyway: writing is SIMULATION, it is not REALITY. The reality are the THOUGHTS — and some thoughts are not accessible to everyone — no matter how much you read, if you lack a complex, powerful, sensitive (all these terms are interchangeable here) brain enough to think these thoughts — to FEEL these thoughts — you will forever misinterpret the author. The higher the thoughts, the higher the being: you must first of all place yourself high enough to earn the RIGHT to these thoughts. To be able to SEE these thoughts. Understanding goes from higher to lower as God himself told us. Can we teach an ape how to read? Perhaps we can... but good luck teaching him quantum mechanics!
In fucking summa: reading alone does not a genius make. You need a powerful enough brain and the necessary EXPERIENCES for that. Further: the brain and the experiences are inextricably related: for the experiences SHAPE the brain, and it's the brain ITSELF that experiences.