Vanguard News Network

The title of the movie, I believe, is “The Sweet Sins.”

Nature is overrated.

Actually a statement like that shows a sort of false pride that can get ones decendents into all sorts of problems. Sort of like we are facing now in fact. You ignore her at your peril.

Actually to put it more plainly this other-worldly thinking is exactly the kind of thing most of those opposed to Christianity moan about. She was your nurse maid and taught you everything of value you needed to know. All the lies and falsehoods you, or someone like you, had to invented.

The world is your representation Mr. Outis. Press upon me whatever cookie-cutter you desire. :)

Then you and I speak of different things. I speak of nature and you speak of “Nature”.

“I believe we should dominate nature and manage her for our benefit, as best we can given the rules.”

Mmmm… interesting… but you understand that you are a part of it don’t you? Again with the teeth and claws and graves eating graves. I believe you don’t think man governs man very well, so there seems to be an error in your thinking. But you know what thought did?

Philosophaster \Phi*los”o*phas`ter\, n. [L., a bad philosopher,
fr. philosophus: cf. OF. philosophastre.]
A pretender to philosophy. [Obs.] –Dr. H. More.

I despise philosophy Mr. Outis. I thought my anti-intellectualism would have given me away.

Yes *rubs chin* I see. Now this concerns the idea of concepts and the basis upon which they are build, these labels philosophers like to throw around. Mmmmm…. )o( Looking at the basis of the concept it is no problem at all except for those hung up on fantasy.

Ha! I like mine classicaly soft boiled. Once one understands that thought itself cannot approach the true nature of reality it frees one of so much hogwash. Poor philosophers… one almost feels, well, sorry for them.

What is the nature of time for example and how does it relate to the “problem”? Boethius, is there a purpose, some finite point of change, some end in bliss? Ha! Cracks the labouring, self revolving…

“I despise philosophy Mr. Outis. I thought my anti-intellectualism would have given me away.”

I’d call it nega-intellectualism. You’re stuck in that gauche, Philosophy 101-dropout limbo where asking puerile questions like “are we a botch” still sound good to you. Notice that Linder maintains his line while you twiddle your fingers.

Very good Mr. Outis. :)

So Mr. Outis, you show me your world through your choices. Through what you choose to impress upon others. Me, I sit twiddling my fingers, but not quite, I am a thumb twiddler.

And yes Mr. Outis I ask questions to examine the worlds of others. I even wear costumes make a fancy dress ball out of it. What’s my line? Why should I stand naked before you Mr. Outis as you stand naked before me? “You’re stuck in that gauche, Philosophy 101-dropout limbo where asking puerile questions like ‘are we a botch’ still sound good to you.” Oh Mr. Outis you are so unkind to yourself. But what do I impress upon you? You are me, or a least a part of me. And I eat worlds.

He he he…

Philosophaster \Phi*los�o*phas`ter\, n. [L., a bad philosopher,
fr. philosophus: cf. OF. philosophastre.]
A pretender to philosophy. [Obs.] –Dr. H. More.

Yes, I eat them too. :) Ad hominems can cut both ways, but only one way if the man they are directed at is not there.

Botches does imply creator and agenda. But damn, I’m not going to legally construe everything I say before hitting enter, so hack away at will.

Argument from nature is a fallacy since nothing outside nature can exist. It’s a partisan argument pretending to neutrality, much like a “tolerant” jew bent on stamping out “hate.”

There are different arragements of nature we can make, and of course many things lie outside our control. We all probably favor more or less the same arrangement, I suspect. Ie., more gorillas, less niggers.

Survival of the fittest is circular. I’d say there are populations subject to pressures. A tidal wave wipes these or those out for no particular reason. A few are left standing. In some way they are genetically slightly different from their fellows that were drowned. That’s something, a change, but it’s not anything properly describable as survival of the fittest.

Don’t disagree, but I grow wary of terms like system and order when describing nature. I emphasize that 99.99% of the species that ever existed are extinct. So, it’s more a death-support system than a life support.

Nature is not harmony, it’s shifting balance.

Good thread. The lesson to take away is: there is no harmony in nature, like some desperately want to imagine. Species kill each other, be they plants or animals, and have always done so. Only mankind, actually only Whites, try to maintain some status quo in nature, even when it doesn’t serve our interests – we truly are unique that way.

What looks like “harmony” is just the pieces that have managed to survive. And they are in constant change.

Why is this “harmony” stuff so popular? For one thing, it’s like God and UFOs; people like to believe that something higher is keeping an eye on everything, making sure all will be well. The other reason is, it’s a leftist way of striking at the race that invented technology. Technology is an enormous accomplishment, and the commies gnash their teeth when thinking of how well it proves Aryan superiority. So they came up with, “Aha, let’s make sure people will always think of pollution when they think of technology!” That’s the connection they always make.

It therefore suits their purpose to have people believe there’s a precious “harmony” in nature, because obviously, newly invented technology cannot belong to that harmony. And so technology must be evil, and therefore the White race must be evil. Whereas 70-IQ Blacks who never invented the wheel suddenly become good and saintly. They didn’t fail to reach above the Stone Age, you see. They refrained from doing so, because of their love for nature’s “harmony.”