US Oligarchs Find Common Ground In Circumventing Law

[Ahldagor]

Court can't make a legitimate ruling with only 8 members. They'll rehear the case when there's 9, but until then a lower court ruling remain the law of the land.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

should man be just as cruel as nature?

It is man's sacred duty to best nature. What nature does well, man must do better. What nature does poorly, man must do worse. Only by outperforming nature at every turn can man know progress.

Nature is lazy, adopting strategies that are good enough. Its selectivity is non-existent. It cares not how well something is done, only that it is done.

The burden of excellence falls to the fickle creature that is man, trapped in the maddening dissonance of enlightenment and primitive inclination. It is in that dissonance, steeped in the estuary of self-righteousness where the chilling waters of reason meet the warm sea of emotion that man finds purpose

May ever man know his rightful place as master of the institution nature has furnished of its own apathy.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is man's sacred duty to best nature. What nature does well, man must do better. What nature does poorly, man must do worse. Only by outperforming nature at every turn can man know progress.

Nature is lazy, adopting strategies that are good enough. Its selectivity is non-existent. It cares not how well something is done, only that it is done.

The burden of excellence falls to the fickle creature that is man, trapped in the maddening dissonance of enlightenment and primitive inclination. It is in that dissonance, steeped in the estuary of self-righteousness where the chilling waters of reason meet the warm sea of emotion that man finds purpose

May ever man know his rightful place as master of the institution nature has furnished of its own apathy.

^^ if that's not just some heaping pile of bullshit, then I dunno what is. Please tell me your trolling and not going all esoteric on us, right?

[Blitzers]

Always liked this quote.

God creates dinosaurs, God kills dinosaurs, God creates man, man kills God, man brings back dinosaurs.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^^ if that's not just some heaping pile of bullshit, then I dunno what is. Please tell me your trolling and not going all esoteric on us, right?

I am only acknowledging the hideous amalgamation of divergent ambitions by which man's nature is defined. We are all mad.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nature is lazy, adopting strategies that are good enough. Its selectivity is non-existent. It cares not how well something is done, only that it is done.

Nature is lazy? In what context are you referring? What are you comparing nature to in order to attribute laziness as a trait? Or are you speaking of the nature of man?

Is it NOT natures intent to bring forth life? Is it NOT natures purpose to survive? What is nature's role in selecting winners and losers? What would Darwin say?

At what point in the evolutionary process are "we" no longer apart of nature? If we all evolved from a single celled organism is man part of nature?

Is a Beaver that builds a dam Lazy? Is the act of building the dam even considered nature? If that beaver had the intellectual ability and physical aptitude to build a dam with cement would he chose to, and would that be considered natural?

If a man builds a dam why is it not considered natural? Is the man and beaver's purpose for building the dam much different?

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am only acknowledging the hideous amalgamation of divergent ambitions by which man's nature is defined. We are all mad.

I don't understand your point here? So because we have differing ambitions trying to unify people you construe as being hideous, because it is in opposition to man's natural state?

Stalin and the Russian Army had far different ambitions during WWII but found a reason to ally with the U.S. and England to survive.

I'm the 1st person to say "forced amalgamation" is hideous, but the attempt to persuade others to join your cause even if they have different ambitions can always enlighten a man's senses.

Anyways please clarify your position if I have missed the mark here.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nature is lazy? In what context are you referring? What are you comparing nature to in order to attribute laziness as a trait? Or are you speaking of the nature of man?

Is it NOT natures intent to bring forth life? Is it NOT natures purpose to survive? What is nature's role in selecting winners and losers? What would Darwin say?

At what point in the evolutionary process are "we" no longer apart of nature? If we all evolved from a single celled organism is man part of nature?

Is a Beaver that builds a dam Lazy? Is the act of building the dam even considered nature? If that beaver had the intellectual ability and physical aptitude to build a dam with cement would he chose to, and would that be considered natural?

If a man builds a dam why is it not considered natural? Is the man and beaver's purpose for building the dam much different?



I don't understand your point here? So because we have differing ambitions trying to unify people you construe as being hideous, because it is in opposition to man's natural state?

Stalin and the Russian Army had far different ambitions during WWII but found a reason to ally with the U.S. and England to survive.

I'm the 1st person to say "forced amalgamation" is hideous, but the attempt to persuade others to join your cause even if they have different ambitions can always enlighten a man's senses.

Anyways please clarify your position if I have missed the mark here.

Nature seeks equilibrium, which combats excellence. It only ever does what must be done, nothing more. Progress is only ever realized out of necessity and then only to the bare minimum.

Beavers build dams because they are semi-aquatic creatures. They alter the environment to give them a competitive advantage and flooding an area by piling a bunch of chewed up wood in a stream affords sufficient advantage, so that is where it stops.

It should also be noted that the beaver is a prime example of bastardization due to the wanton sloth of nature. It is a giant rat that lives in the water. It has adapted to a very particular environment by the happenstance of genetic variation. Is it better than all other wood-eating aquatic rats at being a wood-eating aquatic rat? Sure, but not because it is ideally suited to its environment. Rather it was better suited than alternatives which were not well suited at all since they have not survived.

If the standard for excellence is simply finishing, it is without significant relevance and no different from mediocrity.

Despite his frequent disdain for it, man enjoys the unique capacity to question and defy carnal impulse by which nature operates.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nature seeks equilibrium, which combats excellence. It only ever does what must be done, nothing more. Progress is only ever realized out of necessity and then only to the bare minimum.

Beavers build dams because they are semi-aquatic creatures. They alter the environment to give them a competitive advantage and flooding an area by piling a bunch of chewed up wood in a stream affords sufficient advantage, so that is where it stops.

It should also be noted that the beaver is a prime example of bastardization due to the wanton sloth of nature. It is a giant rat that lives in the water. It has adapted to a very particular environment by the happenstance of genetic variation. Is it better than all other wood-eating aquatic rats at being a wood-eating aquatic rat? Sure, but not because it is ideally suited to its environment. Rather it was better suited than alternatives which were not well suited at all since they have not survived.

If the standard for excellence is simply finishing, it is without significant relevance and no different from mediocrity.

Despite his frequent disdain for it, man enjoys the unique capacity to question and defy carnal impulse by which nature operates.

Is it not in the nature of man to question and defy? If so, then isn't that natural within man?

Isn't it arrogant of man to think he knows what nature wants, needs, and how it operates. Once again is man apart of nature?

[Blitzers]

Nature destroys itself with tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, warming, cooling, and floods even fall and winter could be construed as destructive to nature. Nature also replenishes itself with New life and growth. So if nature does this then why shouldn't man? Is it only the randomness and lack of conscience that we give nature a pass? The Atom bomb developed by man with what nature provided man devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years later ground zero in both city's are beautiful memorials dominated with flowers and plant life. Both man and nature co-oped the destruction and both man and nature co-oped the replenishment. Why do we expect any different from man when we either are apart of nature, or if we're not we definitely learned from it?

[Pokesan]

beavers building dams for feeding is exactly analogous to man building dams to fuel the engine of global capitalism