Forums

We really have no credentials equal to yours.

Your application can be uploaded [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
They are on your level of "philosophy".
Maybe you can take over.
JofA is a generous soul...and he loves competition.

So people do not age, degenerate, grow - experience, shelter, hide, expose, be judged; no epi-genetics? Because humans can change to an degree and in relationship to does not mean change is without limit, of course you change, but you remain as you are, get it - it is your limit.

It is your desperation, the need, which is so pathetic - and hence forced, alike a negro 'I am be seen with muh juwels thus I exist'.

OhFortunae wrote:

So people do not age, degenerate, grow - experience, shelter, hide, expose, be judged; no epi-genetics? Because humans can change to an degree and in relationship to does not mean change is without limit, of course you change, but you remain as you are, get it - it is your limit.

Demonstrate some of the "nuance" that you and satyr like to brag about, without ever proving.....prove it now.

What is your standard for determining and judging change. Who decides? What decides? How is change measured. Don't offer simple, childish semantics, without explanation, as satyr does often. Explain yourself fully. Prove your standard for change. What is your basis? What is your foundation? And how is what you offer, anything other than subjective, based on your personal opinion?

Can a standard and measure for change ever be objective? Can a standard of change truly be "based on reality"?

Or isn't it true, simply, that your "standard for change" is nothing more than your personal, childish, petulant ideals??

I think you exposed our lie....this stuff is over my head.
Like I said, you need to see someone higher up in the brains department.
JofA is your man.

Æon wrote:

OhFortunae wrote:

So people do not age, degenerate, grow - experience, shelter, hide, expose, be judged; no epi-genetics? Because humans can change to an degree and in relationship to does not mean change is without limit, of course you change, but you remain as you are, get it - it is your limit.

Demonstrate some of the "nuance" that you and satyr like to brag about, without ever proving.....prove it now.

What is your standard for determining and judging change.  Who decides?  What decides?  How is change measured.  Don't offer simple, childish semantics, without explanation, as satyr does often.  Explain yourself fully.  Prove your standard for change.  What is your basis?  What is your foundation?  And how is what you offer, anything other than subjective, based on your personal opinion?

Can a standard and measure for change ever be objective?  Can a standard of change truly be "based on reality"?

Or isn't it true, simply, that your "standard for change" is nothing more than your personal, childish, petulant ideals??

Another one for in my collection of most imbecilic encounters; the world is there to see. Is there any chance that the next generation of negroes will be different from the current one, what standard to measure, what pattern, how to Judge, what are the standards. The standard is relative for each individual, potency, capacity and we too have averages, get it; but to stick with the individuals - we measure them through the past and to the ideals related to degree of realism and the quality of mind. As if I cannot Judge you to be a imbecilic autist alike I can Judge cows to be more simple in perception than humans.
Now, of course, evolution is relative to ideals; as I see the likes of you as degeneracy, as well the progressives who want to miscegenate the Europeans; their ideal of evolution, my ideal is to raise above human(e) characteristics defined by judeo-xtian values; but nature does not care.

The standard now is the current manifestation and to be aware of its interactivity, past-continuous. Change is, I do not decide over all the flux; but I can easily recognize pretence, like Lady Gaga tries to be Original by changing her outfits but the substance remains as it is, retarded crap, like you.

OhFortunae wrote:

The standard is relative for each individual,

So you admit that you're an idealist and not a realist, no objective standard to measure ideals, or such a concept as time and change?

That's what I thought. It obviously takes a realist to pop these protected, childish, bubble-worlds that you and satyr are living in.


You've contradicted yourself. There can be no standard of reality, of change, of time, of superior or inferior, without contexts. Is mere survival the context? How about nobility and virtue? According to whom, you? You see, this is where scum like you, compared to me, differ. I embrace reality. You cannot advocate such ideals without first having them as a reality. You must lead by example, hypocrite.

So how do you lead by example? What is noble and virtuous about you? What is superior about you?


Your mind? Your judgment? Your ideals? Your reasoning? Definitely not! What a joke you are, boy!? Pathetic!

Next time you or satyr feel like a challenge, hone your minds a little sharper. Twerps

What is noble for the progressive: to miscegenate, to drown yourself in the cess-pool of humanity - nobility is relative idealism, just like fucking evolution, get it, you fucked up lower-dog. There is no absolute perception of reality / idealism, it is about DEGREES; get it, you lil autistic Chihuahua. I literally explained just moments ago about how idealism should be a projection but as much as possible to be traced back to reality, to represent. What a cancerous Manimalistic brain, not able to understand.

I understand all to well, boy

You toss around labels like "autistic" while living in your own bubble world, admitting that "ideals are relative". Relative to what, I asked you. And you were unable to respond. There can be no loyalty to "reality" while you reference your own, subjective, personal, opinion. You fail to demonstrate this "nuance" and degree, that you and satyr tout so often.

I will prove what you cannot. Ideals must be compared. Reality must be observed without pride or prejudice. Reality is a matter of is, not what is wanted. In fact, to properly investigate and understand reality, you must admit to what is not preferable. And definitely what is not a matter of opinion.

In this way, you are exposed, like the disobedient child you are. You demonstrate NO nobility, no virtues, no higher or superior values. Where are they?


To begin to have any form of "higher ideal", or virtue, or nobility, you need to first raise the bar. And you must definitely demonstrate your own ability first. Lead by example. If you cannot, then all you have is hear say. Rumor. Empty words. Declarations. Insinuations. Meaningless.

Demonstrate the quality of your mind, here, now. And you have. And you're not impressive......

Try again!

And a degree is no contrast, no relationship, no comparison - moron; you truly cannot understand. I am done with you, of course you may go on as I expect you will, you never are done with your compulsive masturbation and desire to impregante some random womb/mind by throwing your pathetic semen in the wind hoping for some kind of insemination.

@Neon
Listen, deafened and copywriting thief, to you philosophy is a reactionary mode of inception (insemination as inseminated) exemplified by, in too much repetitivity, how your delimitation displayed as competitive/declarative/accusative insecurities (I see you are saying "small ego" among a lexicon of other terminology now after I described and named you as one) is endpointed at the baseline of proactionary conception (insemination as inseminating).
That is, you can provoke but not invoke; agitate but not instigate: then brilliance must be the possession of how loudly and aggressively (testosteronicly) and oftenly a challenge is professed.
Least resistance is in breaking down or disordering which is why you can't withstand/resist the most resistance in bringing up or ordering.
Perspectively [for you], it's plainly terse: since others aren't preoccupied with your revolution, which comprises reactions against the object of your preoccupations, then they must be cohorts, nay, followers, subservients or "mind-slaves." Now, this supplies the indications of your fundamental preoccupation of authority and positioning within it, hence how you always state proclamations of your placement in hierarchy as well as assuming the placement of others in it as responsiveness to their positioning and with others and with you.

Hrodeberto wrote:

@Neon
Listen, deafened and copywriting thief, to you philosophy is a reactionary mode of inception (insemination as inseminated) exemplified by, in too much repetitivity, how your delimitation displayed as competitive/declarative/accusative insecurities (I see you are saying "small ego" among a lexicon of other terminology now after I described and named you as one) is endpointed at the baseline of proactionary conception (insemination as inseminating).
That is, you can provoke but not invoke; agitate but not instigate: then brilliance must be the possession of how loudly and aggressively (testosteronicly) and oftenly a challenge is professed.
Least resistance is in breaking down or disordering which is why you can't withstand/resist the most resistance in bringing up or ordering.
Perspectively [for you], it's plainly terse: since others aren't preoccupied with your revolution, which comprises reactions against the object of your preoccupations, then they must be cohorts, nay, followers, subservients or "mind-slaves."

Interesting how in spite of your own projections, you do not disagree nor explain how I'm wrong even if you could disagree......

It's a simple challenge. What is the standard being used here, for change, for ideals, for virtue, for nobility, and how is your standard not based on subjective, personal, opinions?

Where is your so-called loyalty to reality? Where is your demonstration of any "noble" elements you, hypothetically, possess?

........

Neon wrote:

It's a simple challenge.  What is the standard being used here, for change, for ideals, for virtue, for nobility, and how is your standard not based on subjective, personal, opinions?

Are you challenging that views are only ever based on personal pleasure, benefit, advantage?

Are you challenging its impossible to not live like neon-flashing memememe hedonistic animals?


Doubt yourself some.

Keep calm and be a 'philosopher'.

After pages upon pages of text, of posts; essays explaining all of this in the simplest way possible, that someone would ask this.....incredible.

How many pages can I write, dealing with this subject matter, before it is enough?
On the subject of Nihilism alone I've made, at least, half a dozen threads.
Nobility has been dealt with, reality defined, explaining the method of determining what is more and what is less probable also described, in repetitive detail.....
Oh well, what more can one do?
And why would one care to do anything?

For the simpletons no amount will do.
The problem is in their brain...a mental limitation they've inherited, or is a product of nurturing.

Stupidity is its own defence.
Nothing to do with it but exploit it, if possible, or walk away listening to their declarations of victory.

Neon's not serious. He wants to pretend to be a debater to console himself that he is doing something significant and testing himself with the most absurd claims.

A rock lives forever.

I say yes, definitely, and whatever.

Lyssa wrote:

Are you challenging that views are only ever based on personal pleasure, benefit, advantage?

No, I'm demonstrating that these so-called "realists", like satyr, cannot justify themselves in demonstrating their so-called "realistic standards". I'm challenging them to demonstrate how reality is other than their ideals, based upon their desires and opinions. So far they demonstrate nothing, as expected. Even satyr contradicts himself, claiming that "all is in flux", except when it's not. And what about these exceptions? I added context. If a rock is sitting on the ground, and no force applies to it, does it disappear about 1 billion years? Does it grow larger? No, nothing happens. It does not change. It is not "in flux". Because change requires context.


By challenging their standard, their judgment, they expose themselves, one by one.

li'l Erik cannot endure her life-in-mono on her own forum, cannot endure her own self in solitude, that retard accuses others of being lonely… a classic troll.

Painting werewolves absurdly as feminine-killers, its almost as if she's dying to prove my case on effete hypermasculinity for me.

Its tragic when li'l infants can mimic, imitate, read books and excerpt without a clue abt. what it is to be a man. These days, its in vogue to call yourself a sufferer of OCD and such, just to feel special.. any attention is good to a primal slut.

The rock is apart of the forces, it too can be eroded, change in shape, consistency in solidity, weight upon the earth. Only in your video games, on pause, the rock will never be pressured by other forces. But life is not like that, a rock without forces surrounding it.

Who's next?!!

Orbie.

Another wannabe pseudo-psychoanalyst, etc.

To Satyr, he offers his insides, I mean insights lolz:

"Oh my, is it mere 'dizzy-ness', or something more profound, like an illness unto death?
It's power rests in negation. The will to power reversed. Reduce that, to Scopenhauer's idea of the will, and you get a differing representation."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In translation:

"I dont like Satyr's views; they are too hurtful. He is a life-denier.

He calls others nihilists, because he is a nihilist."

Gargle and apply same logic back at ya...

Satyr wrote:

Some pot should be part of the proceedings, to mystify...some mind-altering mushrooms, to make the experience seem more profound.

In the amoral view, ambition, the lust to rule, dominate, is natural, healthy, honest,, except some of us have foregone all that to an even higher ambition. Autokrator. Self-ruling rule.

FC's awe of the US, and to confuse it as an incarnation of Rome is unrelatable.

That whole love of ghettohood freestyle, ressentimental Tarantinoism would be alien to any true I.E.
This America is simply unimpressive.

The reason why I am more of a "Realist" than anybody here on KT is this....

I am aware and observe something called "Balance" in the universe. Sometimes change does not occur, and rocks do not magically disappear or grow, due to "entropy" or "the big crunch" or whatever other spouts of nonsense idealists want to present. While it's true that existence is constantly in motion, balance does occur within. Just as a man can stand upon earth with the power of his own two legs.

Navigation through reality is that balance. And when objects, or people, are at balance, then "no change" is said to be had. Now some here will conjecture that "there is always change, even when unseen". Again this is true, but not absolutely of course. Thus there is just as much "unchange" and there is, change.

This is something the twerps cannot understand, balance, order within the chaos, and peace within a war.


Every change requires context. And so too does this apply to humanity and their "ideals".

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Some pot should be part of the proceedings, to mystify...some mind-altering mushrooms, to make the experience seem more profound.

In the amoral view, ambition, the lust to rule, dominate, is natural, healthy, honest,, except some of us have foregone all that to an even higher ambition. Autokrator. Self-ruling rule.

FC's awe of the US, and to confuse it as an incarnation of Rome is unrelatable.

That whole love of ghettohood freestyle, ressentimental Tarantinoism would be alien to any true I.E.
This America is simply unimpressive.

I have a cousin who thinks the same thing.
Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire are not Rome.

He feels awe before power based on money - money gathered by exploiting weakness, selling self, marketing your "product" to the masses - being popular.

Also every change requires energy. Every change has a cost, an effect, a consequence.

People cause change, out of necessity. Usually these changes are inspired by ideals, but not always. Because consciousness is the highest trait of life, and of humanity.

Æon wrote:

Navigation through reality is that balance.  And when objects, or people, are at balance, then "no change" is said to be had.

What's wrong with you?

He's already defined flow and flux in his definitions. Read.

Peace within a war / a balance in between the chaos..
Is that not what we explained to the idiot relating to pattern consistency, predictability, degree of activity, ordering: LIMITATION.. What an idiot.

I am not sure if Fixed called me or Satyr a liar, doing so for the sake of "social image."

Its most likely me.

The 'liar' part is predictable, but the "social image" is a secret only he knows, because its not known to me.

Come, tell it to my face Fixed. Say everything you want to say to me.

What social image am I trying to save?

Say it!

@Neon
You keep arbitrarily assigning me to the middle of one of your poke tantrums or alleged challenges . You turn around, close your eyes, ball up your synthetic bouque of accusations and toss it backward into the air hoping that others hope to catch it, if not tagged by it.

Besides, as such, you are at a presupposition in a world reality of participation imposed as a confrontation to your virtual reality of spectatorship. As earlier, you can judge, but not be judged.
So all argumentation with you starts up and ends up as you starting and ending it by authoritative assumption (as opposed to explanation).

Judged based on ideals, or judged based on reality?

Like when Lyssa insinuated that my ex-girlfriend must have been ugly...as her personal excuse and justification, to think less of me.

Now, talk about hypocrisy when, which of you know the reality? As if many of these personal circumstances matter to the other topics at hand? Do they matter? Maybe they do.....but that only proves my point.

There is always a compulsion to personalize "reality". That's not a problem until people confuse reality for ideals. Now you want to bring in, satyr said this and that, this and that, fine. Those are his definitions, not mine. And his definitions don't hold authority over me, nor should they you.

Instead what I advocate is higher superiority, always 'better' definitions. And I offer them when the opportunity presents itself.


Earlier, for tuna mentioned "evolution". Evolution is this constant challenge, and raising the bar, raising the ideals of all participants. Demanding more, not only from each other, but from all existence. Revel in the deeper thirst for knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom.

(D)Evolution relative to ideals...