Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

NIETZSCHE NIGAZ THINK U R UBERMENSCH?

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-31 6:03

You are all too fucking stupid. Just by going LOL I DONT BELIEVE IN MORALS AND PARROT SOME OF THE THINGS I HERD WERE FROM "WILL TO POWER" THAT I SAW ON TV!! I HAF TRANSCENDED!1eleven is not enough to become the ubermensch, scoff at everyone else and have reason to think they are inferior to you. You have to actually construct you own rational argument concerning morality not disagree with everything which makes people think you are even more of a retard than you look. Some morals are as stupid as you are, but this doesn't mean other morals should be discarded to justify you attempting to pork the 13 year old you watch go to school each day from your parent's home before you sit around all day unemployed.

Most of you just sit around all day fapping anyway so if anything you are the iconic LAST MAN. Fuckwits.

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-31 7:20

morality is an arbitrary societal construct, now gtfo out of /sci

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-31 12:24

And you people just sit around fucking all day, at least we aren't bringing more unfortunate existants into this hell whole, who is the real failure in the situation?

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-31 18:39

Morality = bias
bias is an obstacle to the pursuit of truth

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-31 21:49

>>2
>>3
>>4
Everything's a FUCKING social construct, by your reasonning I can dismiss all of your argumetns just by stating the fact that LANGUAGE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

If you are going to CONSTRUCT an argument at least have the Nietzsche (he's your god, right?) damn common courtesy to try and equal it in strength to your intelligence.

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-31 22:29

i don't follow nietzsche, i have very little knowledge of his ideas.  nietzsche is not my god.  nor is my god a normal representation found in the modern abrahamic religions.

yes, language is a social construct, however, logic is not a social construct.  it is derived directly from causation.

morality is a social construct, obviously some morals are useful, like murder being bad.  they serve roles in society.  however, some morals can be discarded without much negative impact.  i'm not some crazy anarchist, or anti morality freak, but some morals are not necessary, and all of them are arbitrary, so if it doesnt hurt to take one away, theres no abstract reason not to, while there may be reasons to remove it.

is that sufficient?

Name: Anonymous 2006-10-31 23:15

logic is not a social construct
True, but the fact that you are arguing in words nullifies this

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 0:14

>>7
if that were true, your assertion would also be nullified.  furthermore, no things expressable could be true nor false.

logic is embedded in english and other languages in a way that allows us to communicate it, language is a constructed method allowing communication of non-constructed things.

what you said is similar to insisting that saying two plus two equals four is meaningless because youre using english to say it.

perhaps youre thinking of things could be said such as "two plus two equals five", which we'd say is false.  but while language allows us to communicate something, it does not assert the truth of whats being communicated.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 0:22

>>8
True, but the fact that you are arguing in vernacular nullifies this
alright then smarty pants, fixed

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 3:19

>>6
No it isn't even a level of sufficiency.

"yes, language is a social construct, however, logic is not a social construct.  it is derived directly from causation."
If I decipher your thoughtstop crimespeak dibble dabble banter it appears you are trying to say this...

"The fact that something is a construct does not affect it's validity, what matters is whether it is correct or not."

Which incidentally was my response to your feeble attempt to deem morality as invalid due to it being a construct.


The rest of your post states the obvious apart from this last gem...

"all of them" [morals] "are arbitrary, so if it doesnt hurt to take one away, theres no abstract reason not to, while there may be reasons to remove it."

I have no idea what this means due to the poor grammar, but I'd guess you were trying to put across the idea that morals need a rational basis. Which I agree with.

>>7-9
Haha I knew you guys were stupid. You cannot even fathom the idea that you assume logic and language is valid because of it's effects. A pencil has weight, therefore it will drop to the floor every tim I pick it up and let go unless something stops it. Therefore logic is valid. You understand this argument because language is an adequate method of communication.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 3:20

>>10
HAha, reading through my argument I think my last paragraph outlines the problem you retards have.

I hope you value my constructive criticism.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 7:41

>>11

its pretty difficult to try to abstractly discuss discussion ;(

i agree that morals should have a rational basis.  what do you mean by morality is valid or invalid?  i don't think i said morality was invalid, just arbitrary, and i've hinted at my opinion that language is also arbitrary.

are you trying to say something like "logic is assumed to be correct" in the last paragraph?

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 8:07

>>10
Just because i understand your argument doesn't make it a good argument. If you have any understanding of deductive logic you would know that ordinary language makes a pretty shit medium of exchange. This is why we end up with symbols in all logic-based programs.
Now ordinary language is fairly useful for non deductive logical expressions, but everyday inductive logic is culturally biased and therefore partially constructed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 8:09

>>13 again
and therefore a social construct
fixed

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 11:55

>>1
Signed. Signed. Signed. Signed. Signed! This man is right.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 12:06

thread needs more objectivism

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 12:14

Relativism is for faggot cowards.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-01 13:17

>>6
I would like to point out that murder is in no way bad.
>>10
morality isnt invalid because it is a construct, it is invalid because it is both a construct and WRONG.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-03 21:21


>>5
this is >>4.
The great thing about having a brain is it allows one to examine the abstract logic that another brain-body construct has attempted to express through the admittedly imperfect presentation that is language, and use one's brain to separate the LOGIC from the subjective method used to express it. This means that language does not necessarily nullify arguments made with it, because language is a social construct that was constructed by beings which are not 100% all-the-time always retarded.

In other words, your inability to decipher reality does not nullify the expression of said reality.

In other words,
THINK OR GTFO

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 2:47

>>19
common language doesn't nullify logic. however, it does have a habit of making definitions ambiguous, as abstract concepts tend to not have a standard definition. How can people argue if they can't agree on the terms? They can't. The intended logic is simply not expressed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 4:21

Ah shit, suprisingly this thread has brought up something important. All forms of communication as we know them are pretty fucking bunk at this point, once abstraction is dragged across the physical realm it seems to invariably get altered wrongly interpreted onits way back to the receiver's abstraction and otherwise completely dicked with. I'm not entirely sure how exactly to ensure that our abstractions can make it between eachother without being subject to this, but for sure claiming social constructs as not being faulty while resting that argument solely on the belief that language or any form of communication is in any way perfect/guaranteed to retain intent and something that doesn't fuck up a lot of the time is weak at best and ridiculously funny off the bat.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 5:02

you is all talkin booshit

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 8:05

>>21
Your last sentence excellently puts across the point made in the other sentences.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 8:08

Oh and not all social constructs are invalid. Saying they all are is as stupid as saying all social constructs are valid and should not be critised. You are all faggots who don't understand the actual logic behind Nietzsche's arguments, you just enjoy pretending to by going around calling anyone who believes in something an impressionable lemming and then repeating LOL SOCIAL CONSTRACT over and over, not even botherring to construct a sound argument.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 8:52

>>3
1. Only women who's job it is the breed can have children. They are not allowed to abort. Other women who get pregnant must abort so they can get back to their work. Superior women are often occupied with work, so their eggs are fertilised in a petri dish and implanted into inferior women.
2. Everyone is allowed freedom of speech, however everyone will be educated from infancy to realise how perfect the nation is and if they complain it means they were not educated properly and will have to be indoctrinated again.
3. The state is run like 1 big coorporation, the more useful your work the more you get paid, everyone can buy shares in this coorporation.
4. If you have the desirable genetic traits and/or education you will compete in the running of the nation as a civil servant. You can then apply your vision in the sectors you have control over. The civil servants most effective at this will be promoted and their vision will spread.
5. You can buy and sell your shares whenever you want to support and protest the state's policies, however the less shares you have the less influence you have and most likely the luxuries you spend your money on, the bureau you exchange your moeny for foreign currency at and the bank you store it in will be owned by the state.
6. The inferior women who give birth breast feed the baby, feed it dietary supplements and take it to be immunised against diseases ranging from measles to smallpox. When it is weened it is taken to the indoctrination and training camps. Their traits are scientifically analysed in early infancy to determine which profession they should follow. Other factors such as the changing economy are taken into account during their education. Excessively stupid will be taught purely how to read, write and indoctrinated by the state and sent to work as a labourer as early as 10 years old. Most will finnish between the ages of 12 and 14 and begin an apprenticeship or military training. The intelligent will finnish between the ages of 16-18 and join the bottom rungs of their careers as scientists, mathematicians, social scientists, military officers and law enforcement officers. The gifted may well finnish their education at the age of 24 after years of intense studying and health maintaining activities at grand universities set in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
7. The business elite live in opulent splendour, but must work hard to ensure the sector they control is as efficient as possible or they lose money or are replaced by someone from the lower ranks. Other civil servants also must work hard to ensure their position, but must also compete with other civil servants out of fear of losing some authority and the prospects of being given more authority.
8. The state religion will be amoral, but with the emphasis on a few dogmas which it is founded on. A person's worth is measured by 2 things, the value of their services in increasing the power of the state and the amount of money they own. A person who buys shares or gives back money to the state is considerred ethical, a person who spends the money on luxuries is considerred unethical, spending money on the necessities needed to live is considerred neutral, but a person who spends less money on necessities is considerred to be more valuable.
9. The state is ruled by an autarch who is constantly distracted by the running of the country in order to serve an oligarchy, the oligarchs in turn must work efficiently to serve their lessers. The hierarchy is not a set structure with different oligarchs holding different amounts of power depending on their authority, shares and merits.
10. The nation's purpose is to gain power, to sink it's roots into every crevisse possible to gain as much as possible. It's purpose is not to gain as much power as quickly as possible, simply to push civilisation as far as it can go. The nation thus has a planetary view of it's objectives, both to dominate the entire planet and to begin shifting civilisation off the planet earth. As a result the nation emphasises it's total GDP and science.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 11:47

"Excessively stupid will be taught purely how to read, write and indoctrinated by the state and sent to work as a labourer as early as 10 years old. Most will finnish between the ages of 12 and 14 and begin an apprenticeship or military training."

finnish? I guess we know which group you'll be in.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 11:59

>>24
ive been posting throughout this thread, and i had the first post to use the words 'social construct', i already noted in a post, i never read nietzsche, and i have no opinions on him or his work, because i dont even know what he said.  this argument is independent of him, although perhaps he has something relevant to it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-04 14:34

>>1
needs more neckbeard

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List