Teaching Satyr Evolution

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Post by Satyr »

Denying the past is essentially denying nature.
I have said that nature is the "sum of all previous nurturing".
To deny, forget, dismiss the past as irrelevant hides a deep-rooted dissatisfaction and resentment of what it is and how it manifested in you and determined you.
You are a manifestation of everything that participate din you being born. Your appearance is the totality of your history presenting itself.

The current Lockean tabula rasa dogma is meant to theoretically erase all previous determining factors so as to baptize the child clean, same as with christian practices, of all previous determinations.
Nurture, the immediate effects, must be made paramount...mot to free man but to enslave him to more immediate necessities.
Man now being convinced that he is free from his past is vulnerable to any alternative he is given. He becomes a ready follower to whatever master offers him a sense of purpose and a stadard to evaluate his own quality.

This is a severing of the individual from his/her own nature...his own past, his own identity.
When baptized the child is reborn out of nature. He no longer is defined by its past.
His new identity is in the immediate...and conveniently the system, the religion, offers him a new sense of self and a new way of measuring his won value.
The child is made a minion of the culture the system the religion he is infected by....his nature is something shameful, disgusting, embarrassing.
The meme usurping or repressing the gene. Yet, the gene still remains powerful and so the mind must spend a lifetime trying to contain it and to make amends for it, if he hopes to reach the ideal state...paradise, the coming utopian world...the Ideal Man..

It is at first relieving, this is why most become addicted to the the possibility of beginning anew.
Imagine belong sold on the idea that you are free from everything that made you possible: the violence, the injustice, the cruelty and competition, but not the cooperation, the love the compassion.
This is where the contradiction between action and words becomes most pronounced. People mouth the theory, the ideal's principles, while acting and thinking in ways that contradict it.
A selective liberation from parts of the past.
How could it not be so?
This particular meme, this Judeo-Christian disease, morphed into Marxism and now into Secular Humanism (making it even more viral), proposes such fantastic solutions and such unnatural ideals that no man can attain them....not unless he completely changes what he is as a human being.
Feminists speak of equality yet still use the label "woman" to describe themselves: they preach against what they then embrace as being part of their essence.
If they were honest then an a-sexual world would be proposed where male/female would be eliminated as biological, specialized forms...a social engineering, a form of eugenics they pretend to be against.
It is akin to the Christian rites where a soul is cleansed of its sins, here sin implies nature and Satan, the symbol of this nature.

Paradise, surrendering to the illusion of an absolute authority, absolute order to contrast against the Dionysian chaos and its satyr goat symbol....becoming a satanic symbol.

Nature is cruel, unjust, indifferent...and uncompromising.
One must become strong to endure it.
In a world of unregulated reproduction, to ensure workers and producers and minions to run the machinery of systems, most born cannot cope with the realization that they would not have been born or survived for long under more natural conditions.
Nature here is that which is unaffected by human interventions.
Here the weakling wishes to change reality so as to not face the changing of one's self. He unburdens himself of the responsibility.

This natural, determining, uncompromising, indifference, is "corrected" with the notion of a loving, caring, benevolent and just God.
Apollo becomes the Judeo-Christian singular authority, contrasted by Dionysus and his unpredictable "madness".
Man now explains why he deserves to exist by using a parental figure to which he surrenders fully and feels that feminine power through association.
The start of emasculation on a grand scale. In nature the male that wishes to belong to a group dominated by a male must endure his own emasculation or face death.
With Christian nihilism the weakness is turned on its head: the meek shall inherit the earth.
To be weak and stupid is to be strong and enlightened. To be inferior is to be superior.
God is also the quintessential "alpha-male".
All pain, all suffering, is absolved by it being given a reason.
It is because man is inherently sinful, natural, ...it is man's nature which he must make amends for.
He should feel ashamed of what he is and what he does, in relation to a standard which prohibits most of it.

In secular humanism a man must find his value in servitude. He must be productive and give to the community more than what he receives.
To make this possible the evaluation of value must be traiend into his brain so that his sacrifice of life, self, will not be so great in relation to the rewards he receives.
In Christianity a lifetime offered in submission is compensated with eternal life. Here we see that this so called "selflessness" is really a deeper kind of selfishness.
In secular humanism this is made possible by redefining self; now made into an abstraction such as nation, ideal, humanity.
The individual is surrendering self to otherness, feels like he is surrendering to a "higher" Self. This is the same sensation as when a Christian gives himself over to Jesus.

His sense of self is in denying self....expanding the definition to include all others. In large heterogeneous systems most of these others are strangers, alien entities, which are made known by the shared least-common-denominator: human.
This is also how an individual can sacrifice himself for the group's benefit. his sense of self so entrapped in a ambiguity, an abstraction, that he is nothing outside of it.
He is only aware of self through the appreciation and evaluation of the other. The less sens eof self the individual has the easier it is integrated into an abstraction which gives it what it lacks in itself.
See how many here find self-worth in things: cars, diplomas, etc.
All are cultural reflections which offer them a sense of self-worth. Their conception of self is now totally given over to otherness. The other is the holder of their self-consciousness.

His recompense is a life, after life; an existing in non-existing.

The most striking example of the Judeo-Christian hatred of life, is in the story of Abraham.
Here a God tells Abraham, his minion, to kill his own and only son.
What man, what being would ever ask this of a man? Only a decrepit, fascist.

Abraham, being the emasculated turd that he is, will go through with it...if not for God then stepping in to show how kind he is. It was a test: your blood or my imaginary offerings. The tangible or the hypothetical.

Jesus, in seeking followers tells his soon to be disciples to abandon their families their work their past if they wish to be his.
This is the symbolic form of castrating one's self and amputating one's self from one's nature.
To be a slave to this nihilistic deity you must forget, deny, reject, dismiss, slander your past, your nature, your essence as a human being.

Those that do so wholeheartedly are those with the least to lose and the most to gain.
Who but the ugly would abandon all sense of beauty and follow a new definition of it?
Who but those lacking self, and feeling ashamed of who and what they are, dissatisfied with what nature has determined them to be, would willingly and happily castrate themselves and amputate themselves to find salvation in the supernatural?

In a world where these dissatisfied, weak, ignorant, cowardly, are increasing due to, like I said, uncontrolled, by nature, reproduction, it is easy to see why the masses would be attracted and these nihilistic ideals would become so popular.
They are sophisticated methods of mind-control. No violence or aggression required. the slave becomes his own slave-master...he regulates his own activities in accordance to communal standards with little supervision.
Ironically he begins feeling powerful and arrogant, in the process.

Censorship is on the rise, her....I think I shall not be permitted to post here for much longer.

Oh well.
:twisted:

My lair is known.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Post by Satyr »

BrainWashing

1
Gender

2
Parental Effect

3
Gay/Straight

4
Violence

5
Sex

6
Race

7
Nature vs. Nurture




Notice the attitude of the liberal minded and the emasculated.
Some of them are so gay or metrosexual, their shirts are soaked in estrogen.

They are not interested in what they cannot change. They find most if this mundane.
They wish to ignore it, downplay it, find a small reason to dismiss it.
Their intellectual interest is only focused on what they can then intervene upon and "correct"...towards their unifying goal of creating one level, dull, uniform, humanity.
The very ones that rile against eugenics are involved in a massive sociological process of intervening and eradicating distinctions that stand in the way of servitude to the modern.
They reject race and gender so as to then justify their brainwashing of children into the cult rules.

We also see how science is not objective when it depends so much on state funding....or is financed by individuals or groups with agendas of their own.
Last edited by Satyr on Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:29 pm, edited 4 times in total.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Evolution

Post by reasonvemotion »

Religious ceremonies are man made indulgences and cannot change man's basic nature. A perfect example of this comes from one of your "own" who propheses disbelief in the Judeo Christian ways and yet proposes to do exactly what Abraham was asked to do. The only difference is he wants to enforce. There is no difference between a man who accepts God and a man who rejects God.
The most striking example of the Judeo-Christian hatred of life, is in the story of Abraham.
Here a God tells Abraham, his minion, to kill his own and only son.
What man, what being would ever ask this of a man? Only a decrepit, fascist.

Abraham, being the emasculated turd that he is, will go through with it...if not for God then stepping in to show how kind he is. It was a test: your blood or my imaginary offerings. The tangible or the hypothetical.
johngalthasspoken wrote:

I would force her to take an abortion ,if not i would disown her immediately & kick her out of the house for bringing shame to the family.


I understand your disgust in the hypocrisy of it all, but the probability to change man, seems highly unlikely to me, religious or atheist.
Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Atthet »

reasonvemotion wrote:I understand your disgust in the hypocrisy of it all, but the probability to change man, seems highly unlikely to me, religious or atheist.
This is a typical response from your kind. You missed a critical element of the Jewish god's proposal. Abraham was asked to gut his son, not his daughter. A father has a different relationship to a son, than a daughter. In Greaco-Roman societies, males were valued higher than or equal to women. A son had more value than a daughter.
Do you understand this yet, genetic feces?
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Evolution

Post by reasonvemotion »

Read the scriptures, his one and ONLY...... no daughters. I don't know why I even bother to acknowledge you. Cretin.
Hebrews 11:17-19

New International Version (NIV)


17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[a] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
Genisis 22:2

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Post by Satyr »

The sacrifice was made easier with a fantastic promise from the one who claimed a status above the one he sought to dominate.
This is typical.

The male must be something exceptional in regards to the female's ideals...and for the effete liberal mind the promise of Utopia must be so fantastic that the sacrifice of reason, integrity and honesty, is decreased.
Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Atthet »

Genetic feces, you respond as an inferior does to her superiors.
Imagine the story, the myth, but with a small twist. Imagine if the sacrifice was of an only child, a daughter instead of a son.

Would you Jews and Christians, then, after, be able to still follow this "God" of the bible?
Would you still accept "Him", if this was his demand, instead the demand of murdering the only son?
Why a boy, why a son, but not a girl, not a daughter?
Genetic feces
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Post by Satyr »

We witness the contradictions these bleeding-heart, nature-hating, liberal quacks, with impressive diplomas, fall into throughout the above posted Norwegian Documentary.

In the last part the female liberal pseudo-intellectual claims that sex is not innate then claims that you require a language to know if you are male or female...and what of animals?

They make sex out to be a fashion statement rather than a natural procreative method based on specialization.
According to these douche-bags sex in humans is not innate when it is in every other species.
Man is special, and can choose, because man, unlike other creatures, has "free-will"...like he does in the Biblical accounts.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Evolution

Post by Satyr »

Some conflict on the YouTube community regarding Evolution Theory.

Realists vs. Liberal Twats

EvoGen here is the Liberal Twat.

Heritability

Liberal Twat versus Scientists
You know which side you belong to.

I think some of the more vocal liberal retard on this forum will recognize themselves in this polemic.
Why egalitarians Lie...so MUCH!
What he calls "cognitive dissonance" I call compartmentalization and institutionalized schizophrenia.
It is based no what I call "learned autism" where specialization leads to a focus on a particular while remaining obtuse on every other connecting issue and so blind to the larger picture.

Egalitarian Tactics (War on Common Sense)
We can say that this is part of the overall "dumbing-down" and this enforced schizophrenia and "learned autism".
The education system is producing scores of these automatons, more interested in finding a job, earning money and getting laid.
This is also why females are now surpassing males in graduation rates.
Females make the perfect specialist. They can follow precedent, the recipe, without ever going off the shared script.
The repeat, verbatim, parrot perfectly, regurgitate with consistent predictability.
The perfect worker-bee.

Race and I.Q. - Egalitarianism Destroyed (LebertarianRealist vs. EvoGen) ...or Realist versus Liberal Twat.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


Reality is out there.
Some look to see, are told or know, then they look.
This is not for the feint of heart or the children that may be traumatized by the world and suffer nightmares.

Caution should be applied.
Reality is what it is and cares not for your emotional health or your hopes or your ideals or your morals.

Will chazzy, the human hot-air balloon, suffering from multiple pin-pricks due to the many accolades his masters have pinned on his narrow chest, dare to teach me why Natural Selection is excluded from Evolution Theory?

This douche-bag teaches children what to think...not how....but what.
He cannot teach them how to think because he, this human robot spewing out the same materialistic institutionalized gloating, was never taught this himself.
He has a wall full of paperwork, perhaps a bank full of it as well, but between the ears there's a chasm; a huge gaping wound, filled in, periodically, by stuff and accolades.

He does it so well and so religiously he feels proud of his work...though all around him stupidity reigns supreme.
Is an art-teacher an artist?
Is a philosophy professor a philosopher?
Is a teacher on thought a thinker?

Chazzy is evidence that they are not.
Last edited by Satyr on Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Satyr »

Will not anyone with a wall full of credentials not teach me a lesson?
:(

Come on....someone....anyone?
:oops:

Okay...can anyone with a closet full of black-belts and a chest full of Dans not send me money so that I can visit them and be beaten up?
:?:

I NEED to be taught a severe and brutal lesson....please!!!
:x
I'm dumb, ignorant and uneducated...so this should be easy.

I have no credentials no proof of my intelligence, i seek to teach nobody nor do find students to teach.
I care not what my ideas say about me as a person, nor what impact they will have no me personally.
I feel no emotion when formulating my opinions yet express them with passion and use it to stir in others the passion to dare to engage me, so that I may learn from their wisdom.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Satyr »

Education

The emphasis many liberals and moderns place on education falls into the paradigm of a mind that thinks nature is correctable by nurturing.
Here education, the "proper" kind, is a panacea that can cure all social and natural ills.

The myth is so widespread that in the United States nobody can escape a commentary where education is offered as a solution to social problems.
Even amongst those that do not openly advocate the position that education, training can solve problems based no nature, will often use education as evidence of essence.
They will mention their credentials even before they show the quality of their minds, as if a communal recognition constitutes evidence and as if education is the same as intelligence.

In fact those who are quick to mention what diplomas they hold are the ones most desperate to offer a factor they hope will stand in for their lack of cognitive ability...just as the one who will use the argument of complexity or uniqueness will be, most often, the one who is the least representative of either.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by reasonvemotion »

Individualism is unselfish and unaffected. A man is called selfish if he lives in the manner that seems to him most suitable for the full realisation of his own personality; the primary aim of a man/woman's life should be self-development and this is way in which everyone should live. Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. Unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognises infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. It is not selfish to think for oneself. A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.

Man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.

The true personality of man – when we see it, will grow naturally and simply. It will develop none the less surely, it will not worry itself about the past, nor care whether things happened or did not happen. Nor will it admit any laws but its own laws; nor any authority but its own authority.

‘Know thyself’ was written over the portal of the antique world. Over the portal of the new world, ‘Be thyself’ shall be written.

Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Satyr »

Hogwash...my dear.

All creatures are selfish in that they act on the predispositions and inclinations of self.
There is no act which does not impose itself upon another and which does not result in a desirable return.

There is always an intended, even if not known, return for every action and nothing we does not have an impact on another.

Be thyself implies a knowledge of self, my dear...or it simply denotes an instinctive existence where self-consciousness is absent.
We are always being ourselves, since all our actions are expressions of self.
The question is whether we know who and what we are and why we act.
Animals are conscious and they are not always self-conscious; they are themselves without knowing it.
Only a few animals, one of which is the homo sapient, can ever hope to know what it is and why it acts.

If your ideal human is an animal-like man, intuitively acting, instinctively acting with no understanding of itself, then you belong to a group that is proposing just that.

Just be and do not ask, they tell you.
Be more dumb, more animalistic,m less self-conscious.
To hope to have any free-will, to whatever degree, one would have to have control over one's actions....this means self-knowledge not simply to act like an instinctive, unconscious beast.

A slave cannot hope to be free if he denies his own enslavement or rejects any cognition of it, no more than an ill person can hope to get well if he denies being ill.
This exemplifies the regression to more animal behavior as feminism is making man return to.
Females, being returned to their more natural behavioral patterns, no doubt, feel empowered and more at ease with themselves...yet this is accompanied with a deterioration, a cost, which they do not like and they deny as being a byproduct of their partial liberation.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Satyr »

Notice the moralist arguments of Suzuki in contrast to the data presented by Rushton.
The hysterics and emotional content is so obvious. The attempt at trivialization is another usual tactic.
JP Rushton vs. David Suzuki - University of Western Ontario

The Darwin Debate: Steven Pinker, Jonathan Miller, Steve Jones and Meredith Small - BBC
Being a step-parent is so easily explained by Evolution Psychology that its continuous usage is becoming boring.
In social animals, like wolves or chimps, adopting a stray child belonging to the group is commonplace. Here the shared genes of the group make all offspring relatives of all adults within the group.
In human social systems full of strangers and made up of heterogeneous populations, the phenomenon can be explained as a adaptation of the previous behavior. Here the mind is so desperate to be a parent or its sense of identity is so tied into the common identifications that all children belonging to the group identified with will be potential offspring.

Men would be less prone to being adoptive parents.
Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Atthet »

reasonvemotion wrote:Read the scriptures, his one and ONLY...... no daughters. I don't know why I even bother to acknowledge you. Cretin.
Let's take this further, genetic feces

Before, I asked you a question, one of the countless you will dodge like a coward, you female philosopher. That question was, if Abraham was asked by God to stick a knife into his only child, his daughter, instead of a son, gut her intestines, and spill her blood all over the ground, to show loyalty to God, then how many Jews and Christians would follow this God? You moron, answer it. However, we all know that you will not, because you are a coward.

Moving on without you, let's ask another question. Let's ask if a woman named Abigail, a mother, was asked to sacrifice her child to God. How would this change the Judeo-Christian mythology? Why is it important that God, is male, Abraham, is male, and Isaac, is male? Why is the gender important? Is the gender important?
What does this say about your Judeo-Christian culture, you genetic fece? Answer one of these questions, allemotion
Post Reply