gaffo wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 2:18 amyou are the racist right? (BTW if you found a best friend that happened to be also black - you'd become more than you are now, and serve your black friend, and he/she you if they were a true friend to you). I'm not PC - think you are reprehensible and ignorant to have the view you have, but also know you are just a guy like me - though more ignorant than you could be - and so i will talk with you.Dachshund wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 2:35 pm
Dyslexia means that you can't read the written or printed word competently, right dude?
So how come you are interested in philosophy ?
Being a philosopher, or a student of philosophy, means that you naturally enjoy doing a lot of reading, often of heavy, dense text!
I don't geddit ?
I insulted you, and called you ignorant, so you of course have the right to ignore my posts as well. im all for talking until i no longer find it of value (and i can comparmentalise - ignore your racism and discuss other matters).
maybe you can too - or not - whatever.
Per your inquary (refer to "language" section of this forum - i posited my view of how English "Should" be written (phonetically -which is it not currently and sadly)- i'm a nobody, so my views will not make words spelled right - just saying i posted in that section of this forum on the matter and you can find it if you wish to - recently - last 2 months or so).
i digressed, per your inquiry, I'm Dyslexic, but mild affliction. i read 2-3 yrs behind my pears between 1-4 th grade, thankfully i had parents that knew this than provided reading specialists to allow me to "Catch up" - by 8th grade i was on par (on par - i.e. good enough to learn from there - and to read, though slower than average- I'd say i read about 20-percent slower than ave - a guess).
reading is "Work" for me - i get tired when reading a book, but i do read for it allows for learning.
as for spelling, that is a lost cause, i cannot spell and no amount of will will make me a good speller, but at least i'm a good reader.
others with a more acute form of Dyslexia have a much harder time - both at reading and esp spelling.
if in your mind that make one with that handicap "dump and low IQ" - then so be it.
The official spelling of English changes continually over time. If you read some of Geoffrey Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" worked printed in their original 14th century English, you would find the spelling of most words very different from what they are in England today. In "The Miller's Tale", for example, there is a scene where a guy (Absalom) walks to his girlfriend's (Alison) house on night and knocks on a window to let her know he is outside. Inside the house there is Alison and also a guy called Nicolas; Nicolas doesn't like Absalom. So when he hears Absalom knocking at the window he quickly runs over and opens it, then sticks out his naked but to "moon" Absalom. At exactly the time the time that Nicolas does this, Absalom calls to Alison, "Say something sweet my sweet bird, so I know where you are." Chaucer then writes...
Nicolas anon leet flee a fert
As greet as it had been a thonder-dent
And he was red with his iren root
And Nicolas amidde the ers he smoot
Here's the translation into 21 century English...
Nicolas answered by ripping off an enormous fart
As powerful as thunder that nearly blinded Absalom
He was ready with the hot poker though, and rammed
It right up Tricky Nicky's butt
So if you put Chaucer in a time machine as flicked him into the West in the 21st century, he would fail any college English class. because his essays would be full of spelling errors. Ironically, in the English Lit department of the same college, students could well be studying his work, because "The Canterbury Tales" are regarded as a great works of literary art and a long occupied a prominent position. the Western Canon.
Also, these days, there is affordable technology that checks spelling for you if you have a problem with it. Not just that, but there are cheap "Apps" you can by that that sort out issues like grammar, syntax, style in things like written essays. Not only do they fix any spelling errors, and other technical (grammar/syntax) issue; they make suggestion for you about how you could change the wording of sentences to make your essay more readable.
AS to finding reading difficult and only being able to read quite slowly. For most people, reading philosophy texts and essays, is difficult and they need to proceed slowly. For example, I am a Conservative (politically) because reading Edmund Burke's political essays/philosophical theory converted me to Toryism; but Burke was a genius and he often dealt in high-level concepts; also, he writes in the English of the educated English upper class of the mid to late 18th century, so it took me a long time to plough through all of his work. It's the same thing for Kant, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Aristotle and so on. Unless you are an individual who has a sky-high IQ of 150-160, say, then reading the work of such thinker is HARD, painstaking work. Even University Philosophy lecturers complain about how difficult they find it is to read Heidegger's "Being and Time" because the text is so dense and packed with neologisms. But here's the rub, if you are talking about the writing of a famous Western Poet, Philosopher, Novelist, History - by famous, I mean someone who as automatically accepted as one of the true great/masters of their craft, then even if you find reading is a struggle, it's well worth the effort. It's well worth the effort to struggle through Kenneth Clark's books if you want to educate yourself (properly) about history;if you like drama, its worth the effort to work your way through Some Shakespeare, if you love poetry, it's worth the effort to tussle through "The Collected Works of Shelley" and so on.
Because (1) Where there's NO PAIN, there's NO GAIN (Nietzsche would agree !) and (2) In the case of what we are talking about, i.e; educating yourself/learning through reading the classics; what you put in ,in terms of hard, steady, effort, -if reading is difficult for you -, gets paid back BIG TIME when you finish each text.
As to me being a racist. I am not a racist in the sense that Hitler was. Hitler hated ALL Jews, he wanted to murder ALL of them. Nor am I a racist in the way the Klansmen were in the 1960's in the US during the Civil Right Movement - they hated ALL Black Africans and they committed violent crimes including lynchings (murder) against Black African Americans purely for the fact they were Black Africans- in a perverse sense of the saying , for the Klan, it was "nothing personal." That's a hallmark of what you call racism, the hate and violence inflicted by, say, white Americans against black African-American is "nothing personal". It's not personal because the blacks are not perceived by the Klan or the neo-Nazis as individual persons - individual human beings.
When it comes to having a friend or best friend, these are people who you get along with quite well, people who you can easily chat with, who can understand you, and why it is you are the person you are. Its not mandatory, but people who are friends pretty much tend to have a similar level of intelligence, right? I mean, I admire Henry Kissinger, for example, he was Richard Nixon's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser and he did a lot of amazing (and good) things. From the late 1960's to the later half of the 1970's he managed to pioneer a policy of detente with the Soviets. He personally orchestrated the opening of US relations with Mao Zedong's Red China. He was "the shuttle" in shuttle diplomacy that ended the 1973 Arab - Israel War. And Kissinger was the man who negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, ending American involvement in the War in Vietnam (The untold story here is that the US WON the War in Vietnam in 1972, but Congressional Democrats betrayed America's promise to continue arming the South Vietnamese Army after the Ho Chi Minh, the NVA and Viet Cong had agreed in 1972 the result was that the US lost the war to the communists 3 years later. The Communists lied, of course, about backing down in 1972 and as soon as they saw that the Democrats had reneged on the promise that Nixon and Kissinger had made in 1972 to keep the NVA well armed, the communist went on the attack marching down through South Vietnam, without US tanks/helicopter/guns/ammunition the NVA were sitting ducks, and in 1975 Saigon fell to the communists. The Democrats refusal to honour America's promise to keep South Vietnam's NVA armed after 1972 meant that 58,000 GIs had died in vain in Vietnam. I told this story in detail in a recent post but the Mods deleted it) To cut a long story short Kissinger was a brilliant diplomat, political analyst and practitioner of realpolitic Using only his brains and his mouth, he was able to talk sense into the heads of dangerous despots like Mao Zedong and Leonard Brezhnev over a cup of coffee and successfully persuade the Arabs, Soviets and Israelis to put down their guns and end the Yom Kippur War in 1973 - a war that could have turned very, very nasty BTW. Imagine its you, GAFFO, and the President says, during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, "Right GAFFO ,-you're the man ! -, I want you to get on a plane in 24 hours and fly to the Kremlin; I want you to talk to Krushchev and his advisers and persuade the crazy bastard to get those nuclear missiles off Cuba pronto!
Anyway, the point is that Kissinger was a genius, he probably had an IQ if 150-160 and lots of other high-level personality traits of the kind that make for a remarkable diplomat/negotiator. I would love to have Henry Kissinger for a friend, but that could never happen, he would find me to dumb and boring, we would have nothing to talk about. To underline the point, there was a funny ad at the cinema a few years ago when I went to watch a movie The ad starts showing this businessman taking his seat on a plane before take off. Then you see other passengers boarding the jet and taking their seats. Next thing the real Henry Kissinger (must have cost them a fortune to have him do this advert) is shown walking down the aisle looking for his seat number. Then he look up at a seat number , turns and sits down right next to the businessman. Kissinger turns his head to look at the businessman and says in his hallmark deep, gravelly voice "Hello". The businessman's jaw drops, he looks totally mortified, because everyone knows he's thinking to himself F**K (!), how on Earth am I going to be able to chat to a brilliant diplomat like Kissinger during the flight. Then he sees a political magazine (it was something like "TIME") tucked into the reading matter holder at his feet and pulls it out. His eyes close and heaves a great sigh of relief. (It was an ad for "TIME" magazine, I think), and that was it. I hate ads, but I thought that one was quite funny.
Likewise I would not be able to form what we (i.e; Westerners like you and I) generally mean by friendships, with persons whose IQs were too LOW like say 60 or 50. Suppose someone said to you GAFFO, do you think you could ever hang out REGULARLY with individuals your same age (male or female) who had Down Syndrome or some other type of Intellectual Deficit Disorder that meant they could only read at the level of of 6-8 year old, could not operate a computer, was not fully aware of the legal difference between right and wrong, probably did not know who the President of the US was, or what the basic differences between Republican and Democrats were. I think the answer is no.Right?
To continue. I am NOT a racist because I would have no problem having a friend who was Jewish (like Kissinger), Sub-Saharan African, Mexican, Cuban, Aboriginal, American Indian, African-American, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese and so on PROVIDED we had ROUGHLY SIMILAR IQs and , natural, for whatever reasons : common hobbies/interests; sense of humour; taste in music; similar life-experiences or whatever, because there are many different reasons that two people become friends. I have an IQ of about 107 - nothing special, and in ALL the ethnic/racial groups I have listed there a plenty of individuals who would have an IQ roughly around my own; if ever I met such an individual and we got on well and liked each other's company then I'm sure we might very well become friends.
You need to listen carefully to what I'm about to explain to understand my position, OK? Here we go...
I am a big fan of Western civilization and Western culture. Western civilization IS the greatest OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR civilization/culture that has ever emerged in all human history (FACT).
When civilization/culture is the creation the white Western European man and his descendants. It's in the blood/DNA. Its a "BLOOD and SOIL" thing, by which I mean GENE - ENVIRONMENT thing White culture is unique because it developed in the harsh, cold landscapes of North Western Europe and what we call Scandinavia, today, the ancient Indo-European tribes who migrated to this part of the word (e.g. the Corded Ware or Battle Axe peoples) needed to adapt to the cold climate and rugged, barren environment of places like Sweden and in so do acquired the psychological/ behavioural attributes of the distinctly Western European man: sharp intelligence, conscientiousness,courage, creativity, fortitude, pragmatism, determination , the "will to power" and so on.
Take a Western country like America in the 1950's; its population is 90% (at least) white European; everything is sweet, no race riots, no social division, most people are healthy and married with kids and a family home and a car, the economy is thriving. There is no socialist/Marxist/Postmodernist craziness like political correctness, multiculturalism, policies if equality of outcome in the workplace, cultural/moral relativism screwing with everyone's head. If you vist a city in 1950's America there is, generally speaking, good infrastructure in place, the city and its suburbs are neat and tidy, people still have respect for authority (political, religious, legal, civil), they are law-abiding, polite and friendly in public, schools still provide a good education in the subjects of the core curriculum. There is ZERO-TOLERANCE for communists (socialists) and communism or socialism.
Then along comes 1965. Democrat President Lyndon B Johnson signs into law the "IMMIGRATION and NATIONALITY ACT 1965. This Act threw open America's border to non-white European immigrant from: Africa, Mexico, Cuba, Asia, the Middle East and so on; and they absolutely flooded in. The numbers of immigrants from these countries began to rise at an exponential rate and continued to do so over the next 50 years. There are so many coloured immigrant in the US today, that White European American are destined to become a demographic minority by the year 2042.
The problem is this, and lets look at Black African immigrants and Afro - Americans who were born in the US. (I'm going to call them an ethnic group, because , if you want to get all nit-picky and technical, it's true that Black Africans should not be referred to as "race", "race" is not valid scientific concept. So it's incorrect to say the "Latino race" or the "Chinese race" or the white European race", or the "African American race" even though in the majority of cases everyone can identify these "racial" groups quite quickly by their biological features). Members of any ethnic group have an innate natural tendency to socialise and reside with each other, and so they automatically tend to form black neighbourhoods and black suburbs and even black cities. A perfect example is Detroit. In the 1950's, it population was 1.8 million and over 90 white European American. Today, the population of Detroit is 700,000 and it is around 90% black. In 1950 Detroit was a boom town, with a excellent and well-maintained infrastructure, the city's finances were in good order, people had jobs - it was a good place to live. Today, Detroit is officially bankrupt, is has the second highest murder rate in the US, it infrastructure has been trashed, crime and drug abuse is rampant, vast swathes of the city are filled with 1000's of abandoned houses and buildings, basically its a third world shit-hole (as President Trump would say) Why ? The answer is AVERAGE IQ, the average IQ of Black Sub-Saharan African is 70 (which equates to mild mental retardation) and the AVERAGE IQ of Afro-Americans is 85 (one full standard deviation below the average IQ for white European American. So from the moment that the population of Detroit became black, the average IQ of the city began to fall, and it kept falling as the black majority grew. I don't know what the average IQ of Detroit is today, but it would be somewhere between 70 and 85 points. As the average IQ of the City began falling, the population became less and less able to build and main essential infrastructure, they didn't have the mental capacities to problem-solve, plan for the future, organise, manage, govern and, in short, everything the white Europeans handed to the Blacks of Detroit ( a nice, well-running, prosperous, "spic and span") was just totally TRASHED.
So, what happens in the future when, say,YOUR State Gaffo, becomes majority Black or majority Hispanic (Average IQ=85) because that is what is going to happen (The Democrats just can't wait for it). I'd say the State will turn into a violent, dangerous "jungle". And do you think they will demonstrate any loyalty to basic, white European American values? Do you think they will give a flying fuck about showing respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence ? I'd say the answer in "No"; (1) because they lack the cognitive capacity (i.e the smarts) to competently grasp the concepts in these documents or understand how important they are and (2) these documents were written by white Europeans and American blacks, hispanics, latinos etc have been taught to hate White Americans (who are sexist, racist, xenophobic, unjustly, privileged,tyrannical capitalist exploiters, "slavemasters") and anything they have created.
In sum, I am not a racist. I am a person who believes the the mass immigration of non - white European ethnic groups into Europe, Canada and the US is destroying the West and everything it stands for, and must be stopped.