Argue with me... - Page 3

On February 12 2009 07:24 minus_human wrote:
Frontier is intended to show that I'm talking about the ratio between the best (as in, international scientist/philosophers) individuals of an imaginary distant future generation and the mass of people of that very same generation. What I'm trying to say is that, considering humans will greatly increase in numbers in a few hundreds/thousands of years, the percent of really advanced persons from all the living people of a certain generation will be really small compared to what it is today, and as a balancing factor, those best individuals will be REALLY advanced compared to the rest, much more than the general top scientists of today are in comparison to the generation we're a part of.

So I'm saying, does he think that the scenario I described above is more likely or on the contrary, despite the fact that human variation is normal, the evolution of the human race will decrease the variety and allow a relatively uniform intellectual improvement of the vast majority of humans.


My initial post was indeed intended to sound smart, and there were pompous expressions that weren't really necessary. But after that I really expressed my self in the most simple/efficient manner I could without molesting the English language.

Sorry if it seems superfluous to you, to me it seems that you should try harder to associate the additional information words such as 'frontier' bring to a give sentence.

On February 12 2009 07:29 minus_human wrote:
When I first posted in this thread (which is a JOKE type of BLOG if you haven't noticed), I didn't though of something really interesting or smart to argue about, I just though it would be cool to write a big post with unnecessarily sophisticated language/phrases so that it would be really funny and immature to argue about it later.

Things took a WAY too serious turn

lighten up everyone

and where the fuck is Xeris
He lied in the OP

On February 12 2009 07:56 Chef wrote:

SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!

On February 12 2009 08:03 Chef wrote:
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

On February 12 2009 07:56 minus_human wrote:
do you understand the difference between 'number' and PERCENTAGE?

just drop it

On February 12 2009 08:21 daz wrote:


. I understand that you mean that the 'number' of all humans will increase, but why would the 'number' of humans increasing result in a smaller PERCENTAGE of 'really advanced persons'.

On February 12 2009 08:45 Chef wrote:
It might shrink I suppose, if smart people had fewer children than dumb people... But then you have to qualify what smart is, and what stupid is... and then you have to do studies to find out if they really are having fewer children... And it's really an impossible thing to argue. Either the facts are there or they aren't.

On February 12 2009 08:21 Hippopotamus wrote:
“Society is fundamentally responsible for class divisions,” says Foucault; however, according to von Junz , it is not so much society that is fundamentally responsible for class divisions, but rather the fatal flaw, and some would say the defining characteristic, of society. It could be said that Reicher states that we have to choose between deconstructive materialism and Foucaultist power relations. Baudrillardist simulation suggests that narrativity is capable of intentionality.

The main theme of the works of Rushdie is the genre, and eventually the fatal flaw, of precultural sexual identity. Therefore, in The Moor’s Last Sigh, Rushdie affirms socialist realism; in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, however, he deconstructs dialectic capitalism. The premise of structuralist nihilism states that consciousness, perhaps paradoxically, has objective value, but only if Baudrillardist simulation is valid; otherwise, the significance of the participant is social comment.

It could be said that Sontag uses the term ‘posttextual desublimation’ to denote the difference between class and society. The premise of socialist realism implies that the State is capable of deconstruction, given that sexuality is interchangeable with truth.

In a sense, if dialectic capitalism holds, we have to choose between socialist realism and deconstructive feminism. The primary theme of la Tournier’s analysis of postdialectic nationalism is the role of the observer as poet.

Therefore, Foucault promotes the use of dialectic capitalism to challenge hierarchy. The subject is contextualised into a that includes reality as a paradox.





Prove me wrong, in an aspect of your choosing. I'll argue back, even if I may respond slowly.

On February 12 2009 09:10 zulu_nation8 wrote:


I would bet my right nut Foucault has never in his life said: “Society is fundamentally responsible for class divisions.”

On February 12 2009 08:37 minus_human wrote:



I am not trying to insult you.
If just the number of people increases, the percentage should stay the same, it should not increase by default.

It was my theory, the first supposition, that this percentage will shrink. I wasn't a logical conclusion or anything, it was something I wanted to debate.

And stop inventing things you think I might have wanted to say