User Controls
Posts by The Self Taught Man
-
2015-09-13 at 10:34 PM UTC in -Spectral's favourite album.lol @ this music
-
2015-09-13 at 7:41 PM UTC in -Spectral's favourite album.
-
2015-09-13 at 7:38 PM UTC in TFW you realize SpectraL and TDR are
I could slap you around with one arm tied up behind my back, my ankles tied together, and wearing a blindfold.
I could slap you around with two arms tied behind my back -
2015-09-13 at 5:40 PM UTC in Mark311 is dead
I never liked him because he was a willing part of the Fun Bunch which killed Totse, but I didn't wish this to happen to him. But at least he's in the Long Sleep now, and the troubles of this world are over for him, for the moment.
If by Fun Bunch you mean those who have fun at your expense that would pretty much everyone but you and your Barbie Dolls. -
2015-09-13 at 5:35 PM UTC in Snoopy's wife
TheDarkRodent is like a kind of vampire. They feed their own broken-down and tattered egos by ceaselessly trying to diminish the role of others. They're like mindless parasites always trying to suck the blood out of their hosts. They can't help what they are any more than a bottom feeding, sucker-lipped, scum-sucking parasite can help what it is. It's a natural for them, and they don't even have the ability to understand anything otherwise.
At least vampires have teeth. -
2015-09-13 at 5:34 PM UTC in Donald Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win
Its got shitty formatting. No one wants to read a massive wall of text with shit formatting. Get better formatting then maybe someone will actually read it.
Shove it kid. It's a VB 55 issue. Try help and suggestions.
Until then still dr -
2015-09-13 at 5:08 PM UTC in Donald Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to winIts got shitty formatting. No one wants to read a massive wall of text with shit formatting. Get better formatting then maybe someone will actually read it.
Until then still dr -
2015-09-13 at 5:06 PM UTC in The Universe and You^that
-
2015-09-13 at 4:31 PM UTC in Snoopy's wife
haha tdr you've been waiting so long to post that haven't you? ;)
Nah, it was never a matter of if, it was simply a matter of when. -
2015-09-13 at 4:18 PM UTC in banned from 9chan, so i'll lurk here
yeah the only site im not banned with becaye no wuns can understand the realz me
Correction, no one online gives one fuck about the "real" you. -
2015-09-13 at 4:13 PM UTC in The Universe and You
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. -
2015-09-13 at 3:23 PM UTC in TFW you realize SpectraL and TDR are
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. -
2015-09-13 at 3:19 PM UTC in What will be more valuable after the collapse?
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.? -
2015-09-13 at 2:35 PM UTC in What will be more valuable after the collapse?
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. -
2015-09-13 at 2:32 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
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? -
2015-09-13 at 2:26 PM UTC in TFW you realize SpectraL and TDR are
nah they're just both really old
Wow, never heard that one before. -
2015-09-13 at 2:05 PM UTC in TFW you realize SpectraL and TDR arenah they're just both really old
-
2015-09-13 at 2 PM UTC in Mark311 is deadLol @ 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. -
2015-09-13 at 1:56 PM UTC in Rights vs Privileges[FONT=Arial]If I asked you if you had rights, what would you say? Chances are you would say “yesâ€.[/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?â€[/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 aloneâ€.[/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 thanksâ€. 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?â€[/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 “compromiseâ€, “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.â€
[/INDENT] [FONT=Arial]Notice that there is no reference to a “privilege†or “needâ€, but there is a specific reference to a “rightâ€. 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]
-
2015-09-13 at 1:40 PM UTC in Freedom or Security
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]