NeoStriker Posts
Zak wrote...
https://www.fakku.net/image-404/images/684033-SLRXOTD.gifThis is...amazing. Thank you, Zak.
AvatarEnd wrote...
IB requires a confrontational authoritative moderator. Not sure why anybody would assume the position was awarded by luck in the first place. Also, Waar is made of sunshine, because he's so moe.No it doesn't. I may have called some or all of you faggots, but I also know that all of you love Fakku. We've always loved Fakku. It gives us free fucking porn. There has never been an instance where someone tried to seriously fuck shit up on IB. We've never needed someone like Waar.
Waar wrote...
Holy shit not reading anything you said. You're an angry angst ridden kid and you should just get over whatever trauma it is that caused your anus to bleed.edit: If you'd like to give me a synopsis for your herp derp I would not mind responding but as it is now I just don't have time to read that.
I love the way you make that post. You make it seem like you've already won despite just running away. I can understand if you're scared, but that's why I offered a truce. And then you make an edit saying you don't [sarcasm]have the time[/sarcasm] to read it. I can wait, since, after all, this has already been going on for days. We give each other essentially days to respond. You don't have to make a post saying you [sarcasm]don't have the time[/sarcasm], because you actually do. You just can't say anything back.
Edit: I also love the way you've dropped the point where I call you a humongous asshat that pretends to be sophisticated and a know-it-all, that switches from "angry young man" to "fucking angst ridden teen" when someone doesn't take your shit, and instead decided to focus on where I deride your consistency.
Anesthetize wrote...
> Neostriker spokesmen of the people of IB against the oppressive regime of waar.Powers include:
- ignorance
- being right all the time
- telekinesis to know what everyone else's opinion is
- massive butthurt
- being a hater
Anes, are you calling me out? You say I'm ignorant, and yet I'm also right all the time? Do you want to call me out, Anes? Are the rest of you calling me out? I've ignored you all because you don't make it clear who you're calling butthurt, but if you're calling me butthurt, I'll pretty much tell you...to learn to read.
godotccf wrote...
>looks at 12 pageshttps://www.fakku.net/image-404/images/663652-LGR6PMA.jpg
You don't have to read all 12 pages, I've literally summed up everything in my last post. Those are the exact quotes of what we say, and they're all you need to read to get the gist of things.
Waar wrote...
I'm allowed to tell you why I stated you're a hater when you deny the fact altogether, yes.Waar's Puppet: You are a hater.
Neo's Puppet: If I'm a hater, then that's because you're reason to be angry. I don't feel emotions without reason.
Waar's Puppet: NO ONE ASKED YOU FOR YOUR LIFE STORY. SHUT UP.
Neo's Puppet: So you're allowed to explain why I'm a hater, and I'm not?
Waar's Puppet: I'm just calling you a hater, you're totally free to defend yourself.
Neo's Puppet: Stop this shit.
Stop this shit.
Waar wrote...
What board have you been visiting? I've never shied away from calling the retarded what they are, what makes you think I would avoid doing so for you? Because you can compose semi coherent sentences? If you consider that a victory then by all means... There's gold at the special Olympics too. I will remind you that you started the insults here neo.And yet you tried very hard to call me "an angry young man", and suddenly switched to, "fucking angst ridden teen". So you admit you're an asshat that pretends to be sophisticated and a know-it-all? And of course I started the insults. Unlike you, I'm actually consistent.
Waar wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
If I'm angry, then that's because you're reason to be angry. I don't feel emotions without a reason.When did I say you were upset or ask if you were upset...? You must've thought my second comment about "poor wittle babies crying" was intended for you. It was intended that it would elicit a response from those where it applied. If you think it was talking about you, then you must actually be upset.
I didn't ask why you're mad at the world you fucking angst ridden teen or why you're mean to people here, simply stated that you are in fact a hater. I could care less about your life story.
Look at this:
"When I called you a hater it was only due in small part to your reaction to my posts, you clearly are an angry young man and there are a vast number of examples in your history. Most are unrelated to me." - Waar
So why are you trying to explain why I'm a "hater"? You're allowed to say why I'm a "hater", and I'm not? Stop this shit.
Waar wrote...
Yes because that's how logic works... "You assumed my poorly worded and broad statement about everyone might apply to you therefore it must apply to you". Those delusions of grandeur just keep getting bigger.I do hope you continue, the last person to fly his retard flag didn't last long enough for my enjoyment, perhaps you can do better.
Why do I need to continue? You've already started insulting me. You were the one pretending you're some sophisticated know-it-all asshat, and now you've shown yourself to be what I've always seen you are. I win.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Why do you trust an expert?Because they have gone through the proper channels and have been recognized by universities and whatnot as deserving of my trust.
So you trust proper channels and recognition from universities, and not the actual experts themselves?
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
You make it sound like I'm being unfaithful to my philosophy. I will, and have been saying, that I am an Objectivist. I suppose my degree of Objectivity is up for debate. I am responsible for my own happiness, first and utmost. I am not obligated to help random people on the streets. They should be responsible for their own happiness, as well. I only help the people I care about.Ok, so you don't care about strangers. In that case, we have yet ANOTHER problem. see, it then follows from that, that you are cynical of all people that you don't already know. You wish for other people to ascribe tothis set of beliefs about morality because you feel it's the best set out there. Well, if we all followed that idea of, "I won't help strangers" leads to a self destructive society. I would help strangers because I place a value in the well being of society as a whole. It doesn't matter to me if I do or do not know them. Why would you not help a stranger in distress? It simply does not seem moral to me.
Then don't become a stranger to me. Whoopdy-fucking-doo. You're not a stranger to me anymore just by talking to me. I would not help random strangers, but that doesn't mean I won't talk to random strangers. If a fully grown adult is able to walk alone by themselves on the street, I assume they have fully functional lives with their own set of people who already care about them. Why do babies walk with their parents? I won't help a baby if it starts asking for charity, because it should already have it's own parents, or people that care about it. If it turns out that it's parents have abandoned it, then yes, yes I will help, because the baby has shown that he is capable of telling me that it's parents have abandoned it, and I will then care about the baby.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
I'm sorry, but when I ask an expert for their advice and they tell me what they believe, I also ask for their evidence and all their findings, or else I simply take it with a grain of salt.So in other words, you don't trust them. Interesting, so I trust experts, and you don't, good to know.
Why do you trust an expert?
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Jesus, okay, then maybe I don't agree with all of what Ayn Rand says, that's why I said to look solely at that website. Regardless of the exact semantics of "sacrifice", I told you that Objectivism is about "equal trade". EVERYONE should benefit. I give you my time and labor, you give me resources I require. You shouldn't have to spend all your time and effort to be rewarded with nothing. Self-satisfaction? According to what you've said, how would that actually exist? It's satisfaction and confidence you give to yourself, from yourself. I take my satisfaction from reason; someone asked me for help, and I was able to help them, and was rewarded with their kindness.In other words, you've abandoned strict Objectivism, and have adopted a morality that in many ways simply mirrors different aspects of Objectivism, and what you'd rather porject onto its semantics. I take my satisfaction from reason more than you seem to want to paint. I take satisfaction from knowing that I've helped the well being of another person. You wouldn't do so, and you find such a thing illogical. My morality is better than this skewed form of Objectivism you've adopted because of that.
You make it sound like I'm being unfaithful to my philosophy. I will, and have been saying, that I am an Objectivist. I suppose my degree of Objectivity is up for debate. I am responsible for my own happiness, first and utmost. I am not obligated to help random people on the streets. They should be responsible for their own happiness, as well. If an accident were to occur to a random person I don't know, tough luck. If it were someone I did know, I would in fact help.
Waar wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Waar wrote...
I do think very highly of myself but what does that have to do with you being a hater of the highest caliber? I'm unsure as to what makes you think I'm upset about anything you said... Perhaps you're the person with delusions of grandeur.Waar: I love the smell of my own fart. All of you smell my fart.
NeoStriker: No.
Waar: You're a hater!
To explain it even more, I don't put up with your shit, and I'm the hater? You don't even understand, I'm the neutral state, and then your shit came along. Am I upsetting? That wasn't, nor isn't, my intention at all. I'm just calling you the asshat that you figuratively (and literally) are. It's like calling the sky blue.
When I called you a hater it was only due in small part to your reaction to my posts, you clearly are an angry young man and there are a vast number of examples in your history. Most are unrelated to me.
I understand upsetting people is not your intent but my question was "what makes you think I'm upset?" not "are you upsetting?"; I could care less about your intentions, I simply want to know where your misguided appraisal of the situation came from. You seem to have a queer view of reality, perhaps you should try coming back to ours.
If I'm angry, then that's because you're reason to be angry. I don't feel emotions without a reason.
When did I say you were upset or ask if you were upset...? You must've thought my second comment about "poor wittle babies crying" was intended for you. It was intended that it would elicit a response from those where it applied. If you think it was talking about you, then you must actually be upset.
Yea, you don't go around showing your underwear, but you don't do that with bikinis either. And they look the same.
Corbun wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Corbun wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Corbun wrote...
No. The fact you indiscriminately hate anyone that challenges your "alpha male status". Either you're really awkward when it comes to passive hostility or you don't know what literally means. Stick to hate and rage, you were cooler when you did that.
Who is talking to you? Go get the fuck out and never come back. I sure as fuck didn't refer to you when I made that post.
Ahhh scary. You have a great knack for redirecting attention from what another says to what you say yourself. So I was spot on then?
Your ignorant ass has no idea how to even make a logical argument. Please, get the fuck out and never come back.
I'll take that as a yes?
Read: Get the fuck out. And never come back.
Corbun wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Corbun wrote...
No. The fact you indiscriminately hate anyone that challenges your "alpha male status". Either you're really awkward when it comes to passive hostility or you don't know what literally means. Stick to hate and rage, you were cooler when you did that.
Who is talking to you? Go get the fuck out and never come back. I sure as fuck didn't refer to you when I made that post.
Ahhh scary. You have a great knack for redirecting attention from what another says to what you say yourself. So I was spot on then?
Your ignorant ass has no idea how to even make a logical argument. Please, get the fuck out and never come back.
Corbun wrote...
No. The fact you indiscriminately hate anyone that challenges your "alpha male status". Either you're really awkward when it comes to passive hostility or you don't know what literally means. Stick to hate and rage, you were cooler when you did that.
Who is talking to you? Go get the fuck out and never come back. I sure as fuck didn't refer to you when I made that post.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
If you're a normal, healthy human, and the other person is a normal, healthy human, it would HELP that he further confirms your observations, but you don't NEED it. You NEED only reason and logic to confirm your observations. If I see a shadow, I can go CHECK IT OUT, and then form a conclusion from that....So in other words, you ony believe in what you can see and hear, are you saying to don't trust the experts when they come across something and say they've made a discovery? You rely on other people all the time in everyday oservations. If that helps, why in the world would you decide to not do so? It makes no sense to deny relying on confirmation toe be sure of things if it serves as reinforcement to what you believe?
I'm sorry, but when I ask an expert for their advice and they tell me what they believe, I also ask for their evidence and all their findings, or else I simply take it with a grain of salt.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Sacrifice is if you gain absolutely nothing from it, and in a way, that is bad, because someone is losing out. When you want food and water, you need money. If you need money, you get a job. If you get a job, you are contributing to society. It isn't a sacrifice, it's an equal trade that should be benefiting everyone towards a brighter and better future. And that brighter and better future will include you, so of course you'll want it.No, that's not what sacrifice is, not only has Ayn Rand never made that clear, but she has shown consistently that such is not the case, sacrifice is helping others when you don't have just as much benefit, if not more to gain, from helping them. I could still have benefit when I sacrifice to others, but she would say, "IF it's not a complete benefit, then it doesn't count and you ought not do it!" Something, for instance, that WOULDN'T be done if everyone had this thought process, is helping people by the side of the road. You're sacrificing time, minutes on your cell phone, and labor to help a complete stranger, and you get nothing but self satisfaction at the most from it. I would still do it, however, and that's why my morality is better than Objectivism.
Jesus, okay, then maybe I don't agree with all of what Ayn Rand says, that's why I said to look solely at that website. Regardless of the exact semantics of "sacrifice", I told you that Objectivism is about "equal trade". EVERYONE should benefit. I give you my time and labor, you give me resources I require. You shouldn't have to spend all your time and effort to be rewarded with nothing. Self-satisfaction? According to what you've said, how would that actually exist? It's satisfaction and confidence you give to yourself, from yourself. I take my satisfaction from reason; someone asked me for help, and I was able to help them, and was rewarded with their kindness.
BigLundi wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
We're not going to pretend we live in a dream, we're going to work for it. And you can't do that if you don't have a dream first. Even if a corrupt person takes over a monopoly, no one is invincible, or can be. You shouldn't have to settle for anything less.This isn't just dreaming here, this is asking for a literally perfect world. Any philosophy can easily go, "The ideal world is that which everything is healthy and people al are cool to eachother regardless of what they believe." Ummm, DUH, that's just common sense, it serves no use. It does nothing more than say, "Wouldn't it be cool if blah?" Sorry, but I see no practical purpose in this idea.
Essentially, what is seen as moral and immoral, completely lies in how people see things. The fact that there is an interaction aspect involved in every moral decision, that it cannot truly be objective. It's not like many of the sciences where the reasoning can come from outside evidence.
That's because morality is more in lined with philosophies rather than science. And it has no concrete evidence to support it.
There is no real objective criteria to measure morality. You can only really hope to create less dissonance amongst people in what is moral and not.
The easiest way to see this sort of situation trying to happen is the court systems. Not necessarily the actual trial, though there is room to look at it, but deciding how to try and how to punish criminals. You'll notice that this is either decided arbitrarily, as in what a judge things is best, or is decided based on precedence, what others thought was a good punishment.
That's the truth. If there was an objective way to measure morality, then punishment for immoral decisions would have a more concrete way of being decided. You could easily compare a rapist to a murderer. To a child molester.
But you can't concretely measure it. You can only gauge it partially by how the majority of society reacts to each one.
Which changes a lot.
I'm basically saying, we should be able to have the cake, and eat it too, because why would you have a cake and not eat it? And why would you ever blot out the Sun? Why would you ever take all of the world's water away? We are human beings, with bodily needs, and it's okay to live according to them.
In your trial example, I don't actually believe in punishment at all. I believe in establishing guilt, and then rehabilitation.
