User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-06-07 at 3:31 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-07 at 12:52 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-07 at 11:10 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-07 at 2:27 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-07 at 12:45 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-07 at 12:14 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-06 at 11:09 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-06 at 10:27 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-06 at 8:29 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-05 at 10:55 PM UTC in Does InfinityShock have a soul?Yes, we can all see that you have many pictures of naked men.
-
2018-06-05 at 1:51 AM UTC in Random Thoughts
Originally posted by ohfralala That’s not a discussion. At least not one I’m willing to put any effort into seeing as how lazy it is on your part. Sorry.
I'm posting the parts of his paper I want you to consider so we can have a discussion. I've put forth 100% more effort into having a discussion than you have. You have not suggested anything for us to talk about. You are lazy. -
2018-06-05 at 1:29 AM UTC in Random Thoughts
-
2018-06-05 at 12:10 AM UTC in Random ThoughtsA technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
-
2018-06-04 at 11:58 PM UTC in Random Thoughts
Originally posted by Codebeta I had a DNR with all documents signed and backed by a whole law team. The Chief Of Staff decided the patient needed an eye operation on a dying man and the only thing that stopped him was the threat of having a news team come in. There are no medical ethics and especially for the poor. It also reflects on genetics and major abuses. Drs couldn't do a head transplant in the US…they moved it to a communist nation for $$$$$$$. Abortion clinics are just slaughter houses now…visit one after hours and you'll see what I mean. Enjoy your life while you can…the future will not be the same and God forbid if globalists get full control.
We are here today in a search for knowledge. I think all of us want to learn about each other and even ourselves. But I find it curious that so few of us wish to know what the government is doing. Today, as we speak, our legislators our making decisions which will ultimately effect our lives. Yet, we do not seem to care. Is ignorance bliss? I cannnot believe that or we would not be here today. But how many of you know how many Justices are on the Supreme Court and what their names are? What is the issue on the Hill today and who is lobbying for and against it? I can't pass judgement on you because I too am guilty of ignorance.
The people of the United States have not been in touch with their government for a long time. Even during 1930s people thought, as some do today, that they could live comfortably off their Social Security Checks. Now our elderly have no money and many have low standards of living and poor medical care. It was never fully explained to them just what Social Security was. It was their responsibility to ask.
Can anyone tell me the difference between Soviet propaganda and a United States press release? Or Libyan Terrorists and American Commandoes? A lot of people probably could tell you. They would say that the government hides nothing and lets us draw our own conclusions and that the Soviets are always bias. They would say that commandoes were brave men, highly skilled in demolitions, used for dismantling enemy installations. A terrorist is scum who uses car bombs and kills for obscure political groups. Of course we know that depending on your point of view there is no difference. But people accept what the government tells them. This can't go on. Believing without thinking is criminal.
So what is the impact of letting the government make my decisions for me? What will not knowing who votes for what and when hurt me? Lot's of people knew of the problems with Savings and Loans. But no one seemed to question or inquire into its "questionable" actions. No one seemd to notice the large amounts of money appearing in legislators bank accounts, coming from the S&ls. And now it will cost the taxpayers 225 billion dollars to bailout these bankrupt institutions.
No one seemed to question the Red Scare of the 1950s. In 1946 a Soviet spy-ring was discovered in Canada. Rumors started to fly about officials being "commies" and they were aiding the evil socialists. President Harry S. Truman established the Temporary Commision on Employee Loyalty. By the time the commission had finished investigating over 3 million people, 212 were dismissed and another 2000 forced to resign. Senator Joe McArthy had a list of 57 people, all who were supposedly communists. It was rumored he had a personal list of 205. Senators resigned, actors couldn't get work and unrest was created in local government. While all this was happening almost no one stood up and said, "Why?"
Ah, but I see you are not impressed. Let me try to demonstrate something you might be able to relate to better, censorship. Our decision to not interfere has let the government slowly censor us. They use words like "ratings" to cover up their true purpose and justify it by "protecting" us from "offensive" material. Most likely you have heard of the proposal for "record labeling". Recently the rap band 2 LIVE CREW was banned in the state of Florida. No records or concerts, no t-shirts or buttons from this band will be sold their for a very long time. They were "offensive" and the government felt that they were not "fit" for listening. The government has in effect, told the people of Florida what they can and cannot listen to. I have not heard of anyone doing anything about it.
As the Supreme Court passed judgement that flag burning was a right of free speech Congress went into action. They proposed an amendment to the Constitution to save "Old Glory". Flag burning was an "insult" to democracy. It was "offensive" to our way of life. If this amenment were passed would the government be allowed to outlaw all "offensive" material. Would books like 1984, ANIMAL FARM, A BRAVE NEW WORLD and WE be burned. Would people caugh listening to John Sinclair with MC5 be arrested. And most importantly, would anyone care.
I would certainly hope so. But as I watch the world operate I do not believe so. As society is today, the only thing that counts is "me." Unless some government action has a direct affect on you, it is none of your concern. This is the way the world works today and probably will work for quite awhile. If a problem affects a certain intrest group we do not support them because it is not our problem. And when a problem effects you no one supports you because it is not their problem. Slowly the government gains control, passing a law here, sending money their while no one is there to stop them.
Is their an end to this madness? Yes, but it begins with us. We must take an injustice against an individual and fight it as if it were our own. We can no longer be content with climbing to the top by throwing others off the ladder. We must not only do what is good for us but do what is right for us. And over all we must care.
I am going to tell you a story that my father told me when I was younger. He told me a story about a man who was interviewed by American Reporters after the liberation of the Concentration Camps at the end of World War Two. They asked him how they could let their country go so far. He said:
" First they came for the jedis. I was not jedi so I say nothing. Then they came for the rich. I was not rich so I say nothing. Then they came for me. And there was no one left to say anything anymore." -
2018-06-04 at 11:13 PM UTC in Random Thoughts
-
2018-06-04 at 11:12 PM UTC in Random Thoughts
Originally posted by Codebeta Actually, Obbe is right in a way…most of technology now is not helping humanity. For example there's a drug called Vorinostat, it activates dormant HIV cells making it easier to kill the virus and offers a possible cure. Yet, it was shelved…most likely because pharmaceuticals would lose profits considering their other meds would not be used and this is typical for most illnesses. Also considering HIV may be a man made virus I'm sure the research to create it would produce a cure. Just like when Monsanto sold their failed research to China to prevent bacteria growth in chickens through vaccines and the Red Army used it to develop SARS. Bottom line a lot of companies create illnesses to sell products or find unknown illnesses caused by environmental issues like Fibromyalgia to experiment with new drugs.
If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical” and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial- technological system. -
2018-06-04 at 10:26 PM UTC in Random Thoughts
Originally posted by ohfralala What else you wanna talk about?
There's a lot we could talk about, stuff like how there doesn't seem to be any regulation on technology whatsoever it seems as if there's seemingly no limit as to what we can create and implement into society. Basically, everything we can imagine, we will eventually be able to create. The problem though, is that we often fail to realize the consequences of such technological wonders.
For example. Nobody realized that television would be used as a drug, or that it would be weaponized and that if you were without prejudice, you soon wouldn't be. Its also worth mentioning that since the creation of television we now have several sources of media which can and is exploiting the fact that we're gullible as hell.
And now we got sex robots…
Lots of unknown consequences about these kinda robots, and even more so once they become more desirable than actual humans. Lets face it, if your robot looks real, acts real, if it can cook, wash clothes, pick up groceries, fix the car, suck and fuck you, emulate love to the extent that you're convinced its real, manage your economy etc, you're gonna prefer that over a human being and this is where it gets dangerous and might end up in reducing the human population dramatically over several generations.
Not to mention, there will almost be no female / male interaction eventually since its simply no longer necessary, except for maybe a small group of anti robot people. I speculate that when these bots become affordable and mainstream, more or less 65% of males and 40% females will purchase one, if not for relationship then "slavery" but with the same outcome. And these numbers will continue to rise as these bots becomes more sophisticated.
To add a little extra spice to the sausage mix, our beloved DARPA has developed a chip that can control emotions in people. They claim they will use it to help, but we all know how big a fucking lie that is. If they can make you feel good, then you can be sure they will also be able to make your feel horrible. Don't fucking do it, its a trap and you will become enslaved by it.
Not only that, but they are also developing technology that will allow chosen ones to become superior in almost every way. They are working on things that will enhance memory, sight, learning etc. But obviously only people who work for the right people or have the right sized wallet will be included in this. Imagine that, a shitload of super soldiers and 100% of them will be controlled by their masters or their ego.
Thankfully they have yet to understand the energy systems that exist outside of this reality but i would imagine its just a matter of time before they do. You as an individual might not be aware or even understand what i'm talking about here but lets just say if they figure that shit out they will become masters of the universe and no-one wants that, trust me.
Bonus stuff:
Quantum teleportation is real and being worked on.
AI is getting closer and closer to resembling the behavior of human beings every day.
Bullets that can change direction mid air.
Apparatus which can read minds and control what you do or feel like doing is also in development. ( imagine that )
VR is becoming more and more real, and will most likely end up in people living in a VR rather than real life.
So basically we're all pretty fucked.
Now, something else.
If you think you're smart because you know stuff, then you're not really smart at all. This has to do with how knowledge is communicated and recieved. For example, more or less 90% of our knowledge doesn't come from us actually knowing. It comes from us believing in what other people tells us. We can't prove more than 10% of what we actually know and this is a huge issue that is overlooked far too often.
Arthur Koestler made an interesting statement once, that i find to be more and more true as the future gets closer to us.
He said, human beings are hardwired for homicide and he speculated that we need some sort of pharmacological intervention on anti social behavior in order to deal with it. So here we are, we're all drugged some extent. Your drug might be caffeine, nicotine, weed, heroin, acid, alcohol, or big pharma anti-depressants. If we take away all of this things, the theory is that people will start to commit homicide and i totally understand why. Its because society is fucked up.
You think that your most private thoughts and emotions is a construct of you, but it is not. You did not invent language, or images. Society did. Yet society is trying more and more to treat you as an individual even though it is not you who is the problem, you are just a symptom of the true disease which is society.
Whats even more concerning is that people have been desensitized and is simply no longer giving a fuck about any of these things before its too late. I'm pretty sure we're heading towards a grim future for mankind.
Convenience is our burden, we like to do things the easy way and this will probably be the end of us.
Do yourself a favor. Move out of your comfort zone and challenge yourself with learning/doing new shit. -
2018-06-04 at 10:15 PM UTC in Random Thoughts
-
2018-06-04 at 9:57 PM UTC in Random Thoughts
-
2018-06-04 at 5:49 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
