• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

I admit it. I support the ideology behind the Nazis

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Is this actually good, though?
It looks more like Dari than Nietzsche, but aside from that, how can you have strong and weak if one side disappears. Don't we then have to divide the strong in to the stronger and less strong and get rid of the latter, and so on until we eliminate the last strongest in favor of the an idea?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Is this actually good, though?
Yes. We see it in nature (only the strong survive) and we do it when raising domesticated animals, whether to eat or as pets. If I you had humans as pets, wouldn't you generate the best like we do dogs?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
the large majority of black africa was under european rule for only 60-80 years...your assuming alot if you think white people are responsible for what africa is today based off of that tiny timeframe of rule.

And if your theory was correct, and not just a repeat of what some people expect everyone to believe [usually from talking heads on tv/books]. It would be rather obvious to look at other areas which were colonized just like africa was, and colonized for far longer than africa and expect worse results.

That would include india, vietnam, indonesia, singapore, and a shitton of other countries outside of africa. Most of those were under a european nation's rule for atleast 400 years, yet most of those countries are doing fine, and a few even rival our own when it comes to technology, cleaniness and unemployment/crime [singapore, hongkong]. And the ones that are not doing fine ? They are still doing better than subsaharran african countries.

Oh and they also had, and have more 'colonial' farming going on than africa ever has. Ever heard of java coffee ? Its from indonesia and introduced by the dutch and farmed there. Yet thier not a starving country.

Africa's real problem with 'farming' isnt white people, thats a nice copout. Its the native people there doing slash and burn on unproductive jungle land, farming it for a year or two until nothing grows there anymore, then moving on to burn more jungle. Rinse and repeat. Zero management of thier current farmland is why the saharra desert is spreading south in countries bordering that desert. And is why famine is so common in other african countries like ethiopia where they destroyed the good farmland they did have by not managing it right.

But i guess its easier to just lay blame on whitey and not on the people there, or those running those countries. Afterall, with people like mugabe in zimbabwe who killed most of his countries white population [who also were the large scale farmers, who also fed the entire population and then some] you really do have a strong point. Surely in that case it was the white man's fault that he was feeding that entire country with his evil modern technology farming, and its his fault that black people are starving there now since mugabe had them all killed.

The opposite of sub-saharran african countries of course, is china and how they are handling thier desertification problem. Instead of blaming an entire other race, or other people in general. They blame themselves for allowing huge dust storms to cover half thier country since they mismanaged thier land. Thier reaction ? Not blaming whitey, but sending out scientists to diagnose and fix the problem. Pretty amazing that.

Anyways, i blame the natives in sub-africa for most of thier problems. If other colonized countries lack the same problems that they have, then the argument doesnt hold up in my book. And blaming others for them doesnt help anything but just keeps them complacent to blame others and do jackshit for themselves.
qfmft.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Yes. We see it in nature (only the strong survive) and we do it when raising domesticated animals, whether to eat or as pets. If I you had humans as pets, wouldn't you generate the best like we do dogs?
What rubbish. What survives in nature is the best adapted to the niche occupied. Fitness for survival can have nothing to do with strength, especially the kind of strength that appeals to folk with fat egos. It might be how long your neck is, which can lead to evolutionary dead ends. And who would want to listen to a small minded little fool when it came to the definition of best. When I start breeding humans it will be with an eye for better looking women, you idiot and I don't want them so God Damned strong they can crush my skull. Jesus what a goof ball you can be.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
What rubbish. What survives in nature is the best adapted to the niche occupied. Fitness for survival can have nothing to do with strength, especially the kind of strength that appeals to folk with fat egos. It might be how long your neck is, which can lead to evolutionary dead ends. And who would want to listen to a small minded little fool when it came to the definition of best. When I start breeding humans it will be with an eye for better looking women, you idiot and I don't want them so God Damned strong they can crush my skull. Jesus what a goof ball you can be.
I think you're confusing physical strength with general strength, which can also mean being the best in/at a particular subject.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Yes. We see it in nature (only the strong survive) and we do it when raising domesticated animals, whether to eat or as pets. If I you had humans as pets, wouldn't you generate the best like we do dogs?
Just because nature does it doesn't mean it's right. Nature is unthinking/uncaring. Humans can exert themselves beyond its heartless confines. And then of course is the difficulty in identifying strength and one's ability to contribute to others.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
I think you're confusing physical strength with general strength, which can also mean being the best in/at a particular subject.
I would have to say your choice of the word strength to describe best in or at is where the confusion is.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Just because nature does it doesn't mean it's right. Nature is unthinking/uncaring. Humans can exert themselves beyond its heartless confines. And then of course is the difficulty in identifying strength and one's ability to contribute to others.
He has muddled the idea of genetic fitness and survival with his own personal delusions, based on his own hidden feelings of inferiority, as to what a superman might look like. A superman for Dari would be Dari with enhanced Dari powers, a being so strong in ego it would collapse under its own gravity.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
I think you're confusing physical strength with general strength, which can also mean being the best in/at a particular subject.
I think you're confusing philosophy/ideology with that moronic shit in your head. You should quit while you're ahead. Your troll is pathetically transparent.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
you and your ethnic cleasning hyperbole/diatribe...we all know where you stand when it concerns israel9Palestinian sympathizer)...but for the life of me dude.....WTC7?? How could you let yopur pants down on that....you slammed any and all credibility that you might have had...rofl...hahahaha
The ethnic cleansing is well documented. As for my refuting the official story of how WTC7 came down, I appreciate you continuing to bring that up, as your continued attempts to of ad hominem me with that in completely unrelated discussions where you refuse to acknowledge well documented facts only further exposes what a moron you are. Granted, your inability to separate what you quote from your comments does that quite well on it's own.

He has muddled the idea of genetic fitness and survival with his own personal delusions, based on his own hidden feelings of inferiority, as to what a superman might look like. A superman for Dari would be Dari with enhanced Dari powers, a being so strong in ego it would collapse under its own gravity.
Exactly, natural selection is a natural process, not an excuse for self-absorbed jackasses to determine who is fittest to survive. For example sake, I wouldn't trust JediYODA as fit to clean my toilets, but I've no trouble with nature allowing him to live.
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
0
I think we should place Dari in Sub Sahara Africa, then ask him why his life is so shitty and blame him for his bad surroundings.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
I'm guessing he has, as I recall him mentioning being an Ayn Rand fan, and both are pretentiously inane in much the same way.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
It looks more like Dari than Nietzsche, but aside from that, how can you have strong and weak if one side disappears. Don't we then have to divide the strong in to the stronger and less strong and get rid of the latter, and so on until we eliminate the last strongest in favor of the an idea?
Yeah, eventually i'd get really lonely if it went on like that.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
1
0
Look at Africa...the people there were far more prosperous under colonization than they are today.
Revisionist much? I wonder why people believe it to be socially acceptable to deny holocausts.

Lying about with your limbs hacked off and bleeding to death because of Eurpoean aggression and greed is not prosperity.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
I think we should place Dari in Sub Sahara Africa, then ask him why his life is so shitty and blame him for his bad surroundings.
You are a product of your environment. Look at the types of leaders Africa has produced since liberation. What a fine bunch...
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,594
15,919
136
I believe in Fondue. Do you believe in Fondue too?

- some guy on the Muppet Show who could eat Nietzsche for lunch. I guess to his credit Nietzsche didn't pretend his rubbish was morally acceptable so that puts him a step up from the Randians.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
I'm guessing you two did not see the Netflix video? They mention Rand as being a fan of Nietzsche.
Influenced by him early on most likely, but there are very fundamental differences between the two.

Your association of the Nazi's and Nietzsche is obtuse.

BTW, your link in the OP redirects to a Netflix login page. I don't have a netflix account.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY