Posts by The Self Taught Man

1. 2015-09-13 at 4:13 PM UTC in The Universe and You
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Why do we have to go into a forest to feel the 'powerful connection?' Why can't I just do it here in my apartment?

   Because empty beer cans.
2. 2015-09-13 at 3:23 PM UTC in TFW you realize SpectraL and TDR are
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   I could slap you around with one arm tied up behind my back, my ankles tied together, and wearing a blindfold.

   Yeah, and with his teeth in a cup on a nightstand.
3. 2015-09-13 at 3:19 PM UTC in What will be more valuable after the collapse?
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   At this point, you're basically nothing but background noise to everyone here. Do yourself, and everyone else, a big favor by fucking off back under the rock you crawled out from under, faggit.

   Speaking for an imaginary group of people again are you.?
4. 2015-09-13 at 2:35 PM UTC in What will be more valuable after the collapse?
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   People will be throwing their gold and silver into the streets sooner than you think.

   And just think all those years living in the dumpsters behind Tim Hortons will finally pay off. You can just scurry out for your alley and finally adorn yourself with the riches you so firmly believe you deserve.
5. 2015-09-13 at 2:32 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   Random thought: I didn't make the connection at the time, but with head transplants becoming feasible it may actually make sense to have a clone of you raised. People have pondered the possibility of doing so for organ transplants, but this would be so much better. Your head, your brain, would still have aged, but that generally isn't what fails. Who knows how long the maximum lifespan of the brain could be if kept healthy and all other points of failure are avoided. If you had the resources and connections, it could be done. I wonder if any of the super rich have ever done this. If you think about the sizable percentage that are genuine psychopaths, or at least extremely power hungry, how many became rich through corruption, abuse of state power, the amount who have the necessary money in the entire world, it's very possible it could already have been done, although not necessarily with head transplants in mind. Maybe someone started a crop just in case it ever became feasible, or just for the organs and then realized the possibility would soon be here when the headlines came out about the first planned operation.
   
   Consider China, the genuine lower levels of empathy, the differences in morality (There have been studies on this, I'm not basing it on stereotypes, popular perceptions and anecdotes about citizens leaving accident victims to die.), the poverty and lower wages, leading to greater receptiveness for some illegal propositions, the corruption. Find a crooked lab, a person in the field qualified, then how hard is it to have a child raised in secrecy when you have the money? Home school them, have maids, nannies, who would ever question something as basic as whether they're a registered citizen? And of course the scenario that's occurring is so far from normalcy that it won't ever cross their minds.
   
   Then there could be the first case that's discovered. How do you hide having a body that's decades younger than your head and a possible massive surgical scar than can't be sufficiently altered?
   
   It would be even better than your own body was at that age. Use the knowledge you gain, new information that has been discovered, to do a far better job than your parents. Bare feet and minimalist shoes for proper foot development and far less wear on the joints, optimal nutrition, a refined paleo style diet, particularly absent of gluten grains (not specifically because of gluten) and sugar, vitamin D3, supplements, hell, maybe even use something that could boost height, general frame size, we have multiple substances that effect growth hormone, put them on a weight lifting regimen, then when the time comes, harvest them.
   
   If you wanted to feel like less of a monster you could have their head cryogenically preserved so they could have a second chance at life. Hopefully they wouldn't hunt you down and kill you or be able to at that time.

   
   You should be focusing on a dick transplant.
   
   
   
   
   

   Satan lives within us all.
   
   You are now witnessing a descent into madness, live and unscripted.

   
   
   Your descent and your mmadness, yes, we agree. But Satan? Are you really that far gone?
6. 2015-09-13 at 2:26 PM UTC in TFW you realize SpectraL and TDR are
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole

   nah they're just both really old

   Wow, never heard that one before.
7. 2015-09-13 at 2:05 PM UTC in TFW you realize SpectraL and TDR are
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   nah they're just both really old
8. 2015-09-13 at 2 PM UTC in Mark311 is dead
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   Lol @ Malice turning Mark's death into another generic post about tiantepine. He also has this new cool form of meta-schizophrenia where he gets paranoid that everyone has schizophrenia, like paranoid schizophrenia schizophrenia.
   
   R.I.P. Mark, your cement fume hustle and vegetable grammar will be missed.
9. 2015-09-13 at 1:56 PM UTC in Rights vs Privileges
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   [FONT=Arial]If I asked you if you had rights, what would you say? Chances are you would say “yes”.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]And if I asked you what rights you had, what would you say? The popular answers usually are the right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right against unreasonable search and seizure…[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]But what if I asked you “What is a right?”[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]Now that is a question that we don’t usually think about. We usually stop at saying that we have them but don’t go into what a right really is. But when it comes to people who do want to take your rights away, well, I can assure you, they have thought about it, and you should too.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]When we say that we have a right, what we really should be doing is expressing that statement in its longer form. What we should say is “We have a right to be left alone”.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]When the government and the individual agree about something, well then there isn’t a problem, everyone is happy. Where rights come into play is when the government and the individual disagree; where the government wants one thing, and the individual says “No thanks”. Respecting individual rights is the hallmark of a free republic.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]A right is something that you as an individual own. A privilege, on the other hand, is something that another entity owns who then grants you the ability to do something. A privilege definitely can be taken away if it is owned by someone other than you because they own it and you don’t.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]What if someone wanted to get rid of your rights? How would they do that?[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]One way is by physical force. Someone kicking down your door and killing you would take away your right to live. But that is a kind of obvious way to do it.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]A more subtle way would be to get you to treat your rights as privileges.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]Let me give you an example. Since the right to keep and bear arms has been in the news a lot lately, let’s use that as an example, but we could use another right like freedom of speech just as easily.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]One of the suggested solutions put forth as a way to stop mass shootings has been to try and limit the capacity of magazines. Frequently, gun control proponents will ask the question to an individual “Why do you need a magazine larger than 10 rounds? Isn’t that a reasonable restriction?”[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]At this point, someone who supports the right to keep and bear arms is faced with a choice. Do they justify why they need the magazine of a particular size? Do they say something else?[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]What happens if you agree that you don’t need a particular size of a magazine? You’ll hear this a lot if you listen to some gun owners who call in to radio shows or even in normal day to day discussion who will agree with the idea of a magazine capacity limit as not being a problem. You still have your right to keep and bear arms, don’t you?[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]Nope. It’s essentially gone at that point as you have just consented to letting that other party have free reign to infringe upon your right. Whenever you agree to an arbitrary limit set by someone else or some other entity, you have now set a precedent and included them in who gets to determine what you own.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]When someone makes the statement that you don’t need something and it is a “reasonable” restriction on why you shouldn’t have it, what they are really doing is asking you to accept their false premise that your right is a privilege, and to allow yourself to be subjected to whatever arbitrary limit they or some other party may want. Their argument gets you to consent to get rid of something you already own, that being one of your rights.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]If you accept their false premise, then tomorrow, when they decide their arbitrary 10 round limit is too high and insist on 9, or, an 8, or a 7 round magazine limit (which is exactly what happened in New York) you can’t argue with them since philosophically their arbitrary argument for a 10 round magazine is the same as for a 7.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]Here is the kicker: They essentially have no argument; they just win by default because when you consent to an arbitrary limit, you lose.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]Even worse, they will sell you on the virtue of “compromise”, “let’s meet in the middle ground” they frequently will say. But when you compromise on your rights, you don’t get to keep a percentage of your rights. Your rights are binary. You either have them, or you don’t. You either make the decisions yourself, or you yield them and they make them for you.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]When someone tries asks you to compromise on your rights, you are coming to the table with total ownership of something (namely whatever right you are talking about) and they come to the table with nothing. A compromise implies something from one party and something from the other. Well, when there is total ownership on one side and nothing on the other, if you compromise the only possible outcome is a loss for you and a win for them.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]The correct answer is that need has absolutely nothing to do with it. You have the right to be left alone when it comes to keeping and bearing of arms. You have the right to say no. If someone wants to strip you of your rights, then that is where due process comes in where they make an allegation and you get to challenge their claim.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]The framers of the second amendment understood the concept of rights. Let’s take a look at the second amendment:[/FONT]
   [INDENT] “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
   [/INDENT] [FONT=Arial]Notice that there is no reference to a “privilege” or “need”, but there is a specific reference to a “right”. Implied in the wording is how the already existing right owned by the people shall not be infringed.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]Here is the scary part of all this. If a right has been turned into a privilege, the owner can pull the privilege at their discretion. What happens when the privilege is revoked? Well, if the owner of the privilege is the state, that means that if you want to do something that you in fact have the right to do but the state says no, then you now have committed a crime.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]I want you to remember this statement:[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]First it is a right, then it is a privilege, then it is a crime.[/FONT]
   [FONT=Arial]Always make it a point to protect your rights, because once they are privileges, they are gone.
   
   
   http://realityalwayswins.com/2013/08/14/rights-versus-privileges/[/FONT]
   
10. 2015-09-13 at 1:40 PM UTC in Freedom or Security
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Security, assuming what we're talking about is like live verses death. Being dead and free means nothing, while a person can be perfectly happy with limited freedoms (the freest society you can imagine has limited freedoms). Platitudes from founding fathers don't change that fact.
    
    But "security vs. freedom" is usually a euphemism for specific US policy discussions like the practices of the TSA or NSA neither of which I can say I support, not because they deny us freedoms (particularly the TSA, while they're a pain in the ass it's hard to argue being subjected to security screening when you enter an airport of your own volition is a profound curtailment of freedoms) but because much of the associated policy is simply ineffective or comes at too great a cost relative to the evils they're supposed to be protecting us from. In short, terrorists targeting the US general population are a sufficiently small threat that the countermeasures we see employed today cost more than we stand to lose, but it's easy to imagine a world where that's not the case, where failing to restrict some freedoms would lead to far worse outcomes, even if you consider freedoms intrinsically valuable, than doing so.

    
    
    
    [FONT=Lucida Grande]

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    
    
    The TSA has no warrants and it is not reasonable to search every traveler in hopes of finding one law breaker.
    
    Give me enough freedom and I don't need your security I will provide my own thank you very much. [/FONT]
    
11. 2015-09-13 at 1:10 PM UTC in SpectraL Has His Own Urban Dictionary Entry
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    This post of yours here doesn't even make sense, Darkie. Were you high on drugs?

    Sorry if you're too dense to dechyer it.
12. 2015-09-13 at 1:07 PM UTC in Donald Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Massivewalloftext/dr

    Sorry if it was to many words for you to take in all at once. Why don't you try Pokémon.com next time?
13. 2015-09-13 at 8:21 AM UTC in The Universe and You
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Lol as if this rudimentary understanding of molecules changes jack shit.
    
    Also consider the amount of "universe" inside an individual. It is miniscule compared to the amount of "universe" outside that individual. So unless you have something new to say or at least arent going to rehash old bullshit that has already been reveled by the great sages, please, shut the fuck up faggot.
14. 2015-09-13 at 6:52 AM UTC in Donald Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Massivewalloftext/dr
15. 2015-09-13 at 6:50 AM UTC in Freedom or Security
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Freedom. With the freedom to bear arms one has all the security they need.
16. 2015-09-13 at 2:51 AM UTC in I cut my thumb the other day :(
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    not wearing gloves is what he was doing

    If you want to stop a Sawzall with gloves it better be something like this.
    

    

    
    
17. 2015-09-13 at 2:31 AM UTC in SpectraL Has His Own Urban Dictionary Entry
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    ITT a bunch of slampigs

    I bet you think your cool because you type "slampigs".
18. 2015-09-13 at 2:28 AM UTC in Donald Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole
    Look out spics, the Donald gonna send his niggas after yo greasy wetback taco smellin asses.

    Bruce Bartlett has worked for many Republican officeholders, including Jack Kemp and President Ronald Reagan, for whom he was a domestic policy adviser. He is the author of “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past.” It’s safe to say that virtually all political professionals think Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is doomed. The odds of him winning the Republican nomination are long, and the odds of him winning the general election are nonexistent, they say. The key reason is that Trump’s campaign is based on alienating Latinos, a large and fast-growing voter bloc, by supporting the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants and building a wall along the border with Mexico to prevent further emigration. If the eventual Republican nominee needs 47 percent of the Latino vote to win the general election — the threshold set by two political scientists in a study for Latino Decisions — what chance does Trump have? But if Trump could replace Latino votes with those of another large minority group that traditionally votes Democratic, he might have a fighting chance at victory. And even without changing his message, black voters could be that group. African Americans have long been receptive to the anti-immigrant concepts behind Trump’s campaign. Simply put, the jobs, housing and other opportunities that immigrants take come largely at the expense of blacks who were born in the United States. As long ago as 1881, the abolitionist Frederick Douglass complained that immigrants from Ireland, the Latinos of the day, were stealing jobs from African Americans. “Every hour sees us elbowed out of some employment to make room for some newly-arrived emigrant from the Emerald Isle, whose hunger and color entitle him to special favor,” Douglass wrote in his autobiography. A few years later, in his famous Atlanta Exposition address, Booker T. Washington begged white employers to reject “those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits” in favor of native-born blacks, who had toiled “without strikes and labor wars.” By 1916, mass immigration had made black workers “superfluous,” the New Republic charged. The immigrant “is the Negro’s most dangerous competitor,” it said. Black newspapers opined in favor of the Immigration Act of 1924, which enacted the first major restrictions on immigration. In an editorial, the Chicago Defender said: “With the average American white man’s turn of mind the white foreign laborer is given preference over the black home product. When the former is not available the latter gets an inning.” The labor leader A. Philip Randolph went even further, saying the Immigration Act wasn’t enough. “Instead of reducing immigration to 2 percent of the 1890 quota, we favor reducing it to nothing,” he said. By 1993, poet Toni Morrison put the issue succinctly in an essay for Time, saying, “Whatever the ethnicity or nationality of the immigrant, his nemesis is understood to be African American.” Economically, the division is beyond doubt, and Trump could exploit it if he chose to. According to the Census Bureau, the incomes of black households have long been considerably lower than the incomes of Hispanic households. In 2013, the former had a median income of $34,598, while the latter had a median income of $40,963, a difference of nearly 20 percent. There is little doubt that immigration depresses the employment and wages of black men. A 2010 study by the economists George Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger and Gordon Hanson found that a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the labor supply reduced African Americans’ wages by 2.5 percent and the employment rate among blacks by 5.9 percentage points. Since the 1990s, academics have been studying the political and economic cleavage between blacks and Latinos. A 1997 study by sociologist Roger Waldinger found that employers in Los Angeles favored Latino over black workers, a situation reinforced by tense relations when the two groups worked side by side. A 2006 study by political scientists David O. Sears and Victoria Savalei found that even newly-arrived Latinos were better able to assimilate politically into the broader society than blacks who were still subject to a strict color line. As a consequence, public opinion among a majority of working-class and middle-class African Americans supports a more restrictive immigration policy, according to a 2012 study by political scientist Tatishe Nteta. Gallup found that 49 percent of African Americans think immigration worsens the availability of job opportunities for them, compared with 34 percent of non-Hispanic whites. A New American Media poll found that 51 percent of African Americans believe that Latinos are taking away jobs, housing and political power from the black community. In a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 61 percent of blacks agreed that “the growing number of newcomers threaten traditional American values,” vs. 48 percent of whites. Translating potential black support for anti-immigration policy into votes for Trump would not be easy. Black voters overwhelmingly pick Democrats in presidential elections. On the other hand, Republicans have not seriously competed for African American votes since 1960, when Richard Nixon received one-third of the black vote. Tellingly, the only Republican to take an anti-immigrant message directly to the black community in recent years received a positive reception. Tom Tancredo, then a U.S. Representative from Colorado, addressed the NAACP’s national convention in 2007, the only member of the GOP to do so. During his speech, he received warm applause when he quoted a black woman who told him, “I always knew something would bring us together. Who knew it would be our common language?” Sooner or later, Republicans will recognize that the party’s negative image among Hispanics will keep it out of the White House indefinitely unless a new source of non-white votes can be found to replace the declining share of whites in the population. The original idea of Republican leaders was to enact immigration reform to neutralize Hispanic hostility, but Trump’s success, as well as the endorsement of his immigration views by other GOP candidates such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, makes that impossible for now. So if Republicans are stuck with an anti-immigrant message, they may as well use it to their advantage by reaching out to the black community, where it could resonate in an election in which the nominees of both parties will almost certainly be white. Would African American voters pick Trump just because of his views on immigration? Clearly, Republicans will need better outreach to the black community than they have had in decades. And for the moment, Trump’s high unfavorable ratings among black respondents — more than eight in 10 disapprove — are indistinguishable from his numbers among Hispanics, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. But immigration gives Trump entrée to African Americans with an issue that will resonate with many and at least give him a hearing. An aggressive effort by him to court black voters could change the political dynamics and hit Democrats where they least expect it. Some will point to past negative comments Trump has made about President Obama that could sour African Americans on him, such as doubts about his citizenship. But it is remarkable that he has shown an ability to slough off statements and policy flip-flops that would have doomed other candidates. For example, despite Trump’s history of making misogynistic comments, his support among women in a matchup with Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is about the same as it is for other Republican candidates, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Aug. 27. Trump seems invulnerable to the traditional rules of politics. But that is also why he is receptive to ideas that have been taboo among Republicans for many years, such as raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Although the focus today is on the GOP nomination, it is not too soon for Trump to think about a general-election strategy. Using his immigration position to make a play for black votes is exactly the sort of unexpected play that has propelled him to the top of the GOP pack. He may just be audacious enough to pull it off. Twitter: @BruceBartlett

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-doesnt-need-latino-voters-to-win-the-nomination/2015/09/04/9fd2e40c-524f-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html
19. 2015-09-13 at 2:13 AM UTC in What will be more valuable after the collapse?
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    THANKS because FUCK YOU

    FUCK YOU because THANKS
20. 2015-09-13 at 2:12 AM UTC in Hillary
    The Self Taught Man Black Hole

    Who exactly is going to report that? The media in this country is lockstep with the ziopath War on Gentiles.