****************************************
When Yacub reached the age of six years he was playing in the sand one day with two pieces of metal, two pieces of steel, at which time he discovered what is known as the law of magnetism: that unlike attracts and like repels. Two objects that are alike repel each other like two women repel each other, but man and woman attract each other. Unlike attracts and like repels. Yacub discovered this. So Yacub knew that all he had to do was make a man unlike any other man on this Earth and because he would be different he would attract all other people. Then he could teach this man a science called tricknology, which is a science of tricks and lies, and this weak man would be able to use that science to trick and rob and rule the world. So Yacub turned to his uncle and said, "When I grow up I'm going to make a man who will rule you." And Yacub's uncle said, "What can you make other than that which will cause bloodshed and wickedness in the land?" And Yacub pointed to his head and said," I know that which you know not." Yacub was born with a determined idea to make this man because it had been predicted 8400 years prior to his birth that he would be born to do this work. So he was born with this idea in him, and when his uncle realized that Yacub was the one about whom it had been prophesied, his uncle submitted. Yacub went to school in the East; he studied the astronomical sciences, mathematical sciences, and the germination of man. He discovered that in the black man there are two germs. IN the black man there's a brown man. In the black man, or the black germ, which is a strong germ, there's a weak germ, a brown germ. Yacub was the first one to discover this and Yacub knew that by separating that brown one from the black one, and then by grafting the brown one from the black one so that it became lighter and lighter, it would eventually reach its lightest stage which is known as white. And when it got to that stage it would be weak, and because it was weak it would be susceptible to wickedness. And then Yacub could take that weak man that he made and teach him how to lie and rob and cheat and thereby become the ruler of all the rest of the world.
*************************************
maybe?
Yep. Whites are evil. Every last one of us.
TGRR,
Keeping the brotha man down.
nah, most honkies are just STOOPID.
only a select few of us get to be EVIL.
thats IT
that is the fallacy of the argument
fuck
i cant believe i never saw it before
the grafting technique would make people STUPID
not EVIL
unless you consider evil to be directly related to stupidity
fuck
i cant believe i didnt see that before
LHX - dumb
Quote from: LHXthats IT
that is the fallacy of the argument
fuck
i cant believe i never saw it before
the grafting technique would make people STUPID
not EVIL
unless you consider evil to be directly related to stupidity
fuck
i cant believe i didnt see that before
LHX - dumb
Not sure how color relates to either one.
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species. Only one solution is feasible.
Annihilation, abolition of society, glorious anarchy and freedom, horrible, horrible freedom.
Quote from: TootsQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species. Only one solution is feasible.
Annihilation, abolition of society, glorious anarchy and freedom, horrible, horrible freedom.
Anarchy is glorious, until someone stronger than you wants your food. :lol:
Quote from: TootsQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerTGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species.
Actually, we are all born naked, stupid, helpless. We are born as animals.
It is education that makes us human. Without that, we're just running around, eating, drinking, pissing, shitting, sleeping, fucking, and killing time in between -- just like the animals.
What you need to do -- what will give you faith in humanity -- is realising that 90% of all "humans" aren't human at all. They're just animals.
Or, as they say, Cabbages.
It's perfectly okay to kill them, too. You can tell the difference just by telling them you're gonna kill them. If they laugh or get upset, they're animals. (Laughter is largely a survival-response. Pay attention to what the comedians are joking about. Guaranteed, it's a survival issue.) If they kill you first, they're animals.
But if they ask you to wait until they finish whatever project they happen to be involved in or working on, they're human. Only humans have hobbies. (Everyone else just masturbates, drinks, or watches tv -- and no, wanting to finish watching a show is not an indication of humanity, but an indication that they weren't paying attention.)
the other anonymous
Please wait until I finish this damn script parser.
I feel marginalized, LIKE CAN BE ATTRACHED TO LIKE.
Fucking Biggot.
ANd, you're EMO.
So there.
Or something.
:P
Quote from: Zurtok KhanI feel marginalized, LIKE CAN BE ATTRACHED TO LIKE.
Fucking Biggot.
ANd, you're EMO.
So there.
Or something.
:P
i give zurtok 10/10 for effort
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: TootsQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species. Only one solution is feasible.
Annihilation, abolition of society, glorious anarchy and freedom, horrible, horrible freedom.
Anarchy is glorious, until someone stronger than you wants your food. :lol:
Sort of like nature.
Quote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: TootsQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species. Only one solution is feasible.
Annihilation, abolition of society, glorious anarchy and freedom, horrible, horrible freedom.
Anarchy is glorious, until someone stronger than you wants your food. :lol:
Sort of like nature.
without interference
there is prolly enough to go around
for a long long long time
but
it just wouldnt seem as thrilling or dramatic
Quote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: TootsQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species. Only one solution is feasible.
Annihilation, abolition of society, glorious anarchy and freedom, horrible, horrible freedom.
Anarchy is glorious, until someone stronger than you wants your food. :lol:
Sort of like nature.
And we all know how well people survive in nature.
TGRR,
Thinks the planet would be stacked wiff corpses...uh, wait a minute...
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: TootsQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species. Only one solution is feasible.
Annihilation, abolition of society, glorious anarchy and freedom, horrible, horrible freedom.
Anarchy is glorious, until someone stronger than you wants your food. :lol:
Sort of like nature.
And we all know how well people survive in nature.
TGRR,
Thinks the planet would be stacked wiff corpses...uh, wait a minute...
Heh. We got the stacks of corpses already. We have always had them. And loe and behold, the humans are still alive.
Quote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCQuote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: TootsQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
This is because all races are equally stupid sadly, a condition that affects the majority of the species. Only one solution is feasible.
Annihilation, abolition of society, glorious anarchy and freedom, horrible, horrible freedom.
Anarchy is glorious, until someone stronger than you wants your food. :lol:
Sort of like nature.
And we all know how well people survive in nature.
TGRR,
Thinks the planet would be stacked wiff corpses...uh, wait a minute...
Heh. We got the stacks of corpses already. We have always had them. And loe and behold, the humans are still alive.
That never fails to amaze me.
The way humans kill each other off, you'd think they would be extinct...yet they continue to infest the intire habitable world. And Canada.
Quote from: the other anonymous
What you need to do -- what will give you faith in humanity -- is realising that 90% of all "humans" aren't human at all. They're just animals.
Or, as they say, Cabbages.
This is true. For example, on another thread we had let the secret out of the bag that Ann Coulter is in fact a hastily shaved howler monkey.
Humanoid animals/cabbages=cancer.
A mass extinction event would be great. We are not efficient enough at killing each other. Too slow.
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerQuote from: LHXthats IT
that is the fallacy of the argument
fuck
i cant believe i never saw it before
the grafting technique would make people STUPID
not EVIL
unless you consider evil to be directly related to stupidity
fuck
i cant believe i didnt see that before
LHX - dumb
Not sure how color relates to either one.
TGRR,
Has seen stupidity in EVERY race.
Evil too. History of all races=story of evil.
Isn't evil a determination that we make and is therefore biased and/or subjective?
In short, isn't evil another attempt to categorize?
the point i tried to aim at:
does an 'evil' act require stupidity?
true tho - evil prolly is subjective
unless evil is synonymous with self-destructive
Quote from: LHX
unless evil is synonymous with self-destructive
Detrimental to something that relates to us?
Self-destructive? Is that too narrow a definition?
Quote from: Jean-Paul FartreQuote from: LHX
unless evil is synonymous with self-destructive
Detrimental to something that relates to us?
Self-destructive? Is that too narrow a definition?
maybe thats something we are going to find out in the future
can you conquer the land without killing yourself?
Quote from: LHXthe point i tried to aim at:
does an 'evil' act require stupidity?
true tho - evil prolly is subjective
unless evil is synonymous with self-destructive
Evil is typically defined as any act which is destructive to society, the community, or the self.
So, by that definition, yes, evil==stupid, unless the society/community/self needs to be destroyed for the betterment of the people.
For example: killing is okay if it's in self-defense or rids the community of an obviously un"redeemable" threat (death penalty). Killing for fun, though, is evil.
Actually, I think this philosophy just supported the Holocaust...
Excuse me while I rethink my definition of evil.
....
....
Nope, I was right. Kill all the stupid people. (Eugenics + Genocide + Sex == Evolution! Eugenics + Genocide - Sex == Intelligent Design!)
if darwins theory of "survival of the fittest is true",why are there still so many stupid people alive?
Quote from: Malaulif darwins theory of "survival of the fittest is true",why are there still so many stupid people alive?
because when that phrase was coined, 'fittest' did not mean 'most fit' (ie:physically strong) but 'most fitting'. i had heard that Darwin didn't come up with the slogan either. think it might've been someone french...can't quite remember.
but to answer your question, if being stupid means that a person is most suitably adapted to their environment, then they will flourish.
solution? make the world exceedingly complicated & confusing so that the stupid are no longer appropriate to the environment. they will have to evolve or die.
Quote from: Pope T.Mangrove xvii
solution? make the world exceedingly complicated & confusing so that the stupid are no longer appropriate to the environment. they will have to evolve or die.
maybe thats what we are observing
Quote from: LHXQuote from: Pope T.Mangrove xvii
solution? make the world exceedingly complicated & confusing so that the stupid are no longer appropriate to the environment. they will have to evolve or die.
maybe thats what we are observing
If that were so China and the US would be finito. Sadly, stupidity seems to be getting more rampant, not less so. Stupid people don't ask uncomfortable questions about what the people in power are doing therefore are easier to rule, you can give them the illusion of freedom with Walmart prices. In order for some people to remain stinkin rich off global roberry and bullying you need consumers. Stupid people consume more.
Quote from: Pope T.Mangrove xviiQuote from: Malaulif darwins theory of "survival of the fittest is true",why are there still so many stupid people alive?
because when that phrase was coined, 'fittest' did not mean 'most fit' (ie:physically strong) but 'most fitting'. i had heard that Darwin didn't come up with the slogan either. think it might've been someone french...can't quite remember.
but to answer your question, if being stupid means that a person is most suitably adapted to their environment, then they will flourish.
solution? make the world exceedingly complicated & confusing so that the stupid are no longer appropriate to the environment. they will have to evolve or die.
Herbert Spencer coined the phrase for use in evolution, though it was in common usage to describe therobber barons and capitalist method of operating at the time anyway.
Besides, for the past few years, a newer evolutionary theory concerning game rule, trust and cooperation has come into being which better describes the system of evolution anyway. Stupid people are more willing to do it the way a "leader" tells them to, while individualists will more often distrust such people and go their own way, only to be ostracised and fail to pass on genes. Therefore, evolution becomes more accident and a move towards a medium (except in extreme cases, which is alot more involved with phenotypes then genotypes) and coformity.
evolution theories always seem to leave out so many aspects of life on this planet
Quote from: Malaulif darwins theory of "survival of the fittest is true",why are there still so many stupid people alive?
See the Neolithic Revolution.
Quote from: CainQuote from: Pope T.Mangrove xviiQuote from: Malaulif darwins theory of "survival of the fittest is true",why are there still so many stupid people alive?
because when that phrase was coined, 'fittest' did not mean 'most fit' (ie:physically strong) but 'most fitting'. i had heard that Darwin didn't come up with the slogan either. think it might've been someone french...can't quite remember.
but to answer your question, if being stupid means that a person is most suitably adapted to their environment, then they will flourish.
solution? make the world exceedingly complicated & confusing so that the stupid are no longer appropriate to the environment. they will have to evolve or die.
Herbert Spencer coined the phrase for use in evolution, though it was in common usage to describe therobber barons and capitalist method of operating at the time anyway.
Besides, for the past few years, a newer evolutionary theory concerning game rule, trust and cooperation has come into being which better describes the system of evolution anyway. Stupid people are more willing to do it the way a "leader" tells them to, while individualists will more often distrust such people and go their own way, only to be ostracised and fail to pass on genes. Therefore, evolution becomes more accident and a move towards a medium (except in extreme cases, which is alot more involved with phenotypes then genotypes) and coformity.
thanks cain - i
knew you'd know about this 8)
I try my best. Not that its hard, its fascinating how the theory is changing. If you buy this months Economist it has some stuff on it, but of course with the usual Economist hype that surrounds such things...
The Economist has hype?
Compared to the US print-run drivel like Time, Newsweek, New Yorker, etc, calling the Economist hype-driven is like saying David Byrne has a big ass.
:lol: OK, maybe. Its just anytime something comes up to support an unregulated, market driven economy and has some vague science to back it up, they tend to go...overboard. Which is why I rarely buy the thing, unless there is something I really need to read and its only in it.