Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
I am a demon-worshipper.
No. I am an enlightened humanitarian. 13%
No. I am an enlightened atheist and skeptical thinker. 36%
No. I am an englightened new-age spritualist. 9%
No. I believe in the primacy of progress over human life. 0%
No. Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live forever. 40%

Votes: 22

 The Satanic Nature of Kuro5hin is Revealed.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 07, 2002
 Comments:
It has happened: I now have proof of something that I suspected for a long time now.
diaries

More diaries by tkatchev
Fuck the geeks.
Totalitarian America
This just in:
A Question for Americans.
For Inden.
Hell in your Handbasket
Another one bites the dust...
Another terrorist act.
OMG, ESR is a troll!
Kuro5hin
Win a fabulous trip to North Korea.
Contemporary Russian Poetry
Contemporary Russian Poetry pt. II
Happy Constitution Day!
Postmodern Art, Pt. I
Postmodernist Art, Pt. II
Contemporary Russian Poetry, Pt. III
Babylon Must Fall.
Happy New Year!
Weblog Pornography
Discover the Russia you never knew.
"New Chronology": As Requested.
LOTR: Please don't kill me.
Link Propagation.
(Reading list)
The Benefits of Browsing Slashdot.
Kuro5hit Update
Controversial Wallpaper
Serious Inquiry about Paganism
Liberalists celebrating Hilter's birthday.
Happy Mayday!
Brilliant Kuro5hin article.
Please excuse the rudity.
Update
Oh ghod this is rich.
Another mindless link.
Kuro5hin was always a suspect site for me; in spite of the "happy-feely", "democratic" nature of the site, I always felt that the site has a very brutal liberalist underbelly.

Today, I have proof: propaganda of satanism on Kuro5hin.

I think I don't need to explain to anybody even nominally Christian what "lucid dreaming" is all about.

Just more proof that any liberalist ideology eventually degenerates into demon-worship, no matter how "enlightened", "scientific" and "progressive" it starts out as. Anybody who has ever been to a communist country will know what I am talking about; those of you, however, who have never left the American Midwest may have a hard time understanding what I am talking about.

Well, here you have a perfect example.


Scientists (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 08:27:40 AM PST
I think the scientists in this story are the type you are referring to.

Scientist 1: ...and I am happy to report that this "wine press" which so terrified the superstitious public is, in fact, nothing more than a defunct Soviet satellite!
Scientist 2: You mean..?
Scientist 1: Yes, my fellow scientists! Based on these findings, we have now conclusively, irrefutably proven once and for all THERE IS NO GOD!!!
Scientist 3: Ya hear that, everyone? We're free of all MORAL constraints!
Scientist 4: Let's go kill somebody... just for fun!!!
Scientist 2: First I have to go home and brutally rape my six year old son!

you see (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 10:16:17 PM PST
"Ya hear that, everyone? We're free of all MORAL constraints!"
Only religious people would think like that. I really do fear religious people more than any others on this planet - they are highly insecure. What if the existance of god was proven wrong? *shudder*

Normal people base their morals on a belief in the species and society rather than having morals just because god says so.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

What? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:48:55 AM PST
"belief in the species and society"?

Are you serious? If you are, then you should go commit suicide immediately. For the good of the species, of course.


--
Peace and much love...

 
Moral codes (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 02:43:43 AM PST
Normal people base their morals on a belief in the species and society rather than having morals just because god says so.

Well, maybe. Most normal people round my neck of the woods use utilitarianism and their nurtured class-based learnings in deciding their moral path. Most religions and secular movements have a similar ethic of reciprocity. There's a lovely essay on the topic of moral diversity amongst religions, if you're interested
An unreformed Aristotlean

 
waitaminnit (none / 0) (#17)
by nathan on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 08:35:31 AM PST
I thought you considered normal people bovine and idiotic.

Either you are much smarter, or much, much stupider than I had thought.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Huh??? (none / 0) (#21)
by hauntedattics on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 03:20:12 PM PST
I failed to see how you think someone will prove that God doesn't exist, since all atheists do now is complain that it's impossible to prove God does exist.

(I'll give you a hint...proof has nothing to do with it.)



proof (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 09:58:01 AM PST
Ah yes, arguing epistemological matters with the theologists is always fun. Their hypocracy knows no bounds - they will argue that your attempts to form objective knowledge out of subjective measurements are somehow terribly flawed, yet kindly ignore the fact that their faith-based viewpoints are entirely invented. There is no attempt made in divining an objective solution.

To accept theological opinions on the nature of being is a leap of faith in itself.

good work! (none / 0) (#27)
by nathan on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 10:37:00 AM PST
To accept theological opinions on the nature of being is a leap of faith in itself.

On another topic, what do you know about the phrase "leap of faith?"

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Other than what it means? (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 08:28:51 AM PST
I'd have to consult the Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable that I got for Xmas. But that's at home. I asked the Internet, and it reckons that your old pal Kierkegaard came up with it. More power to his elbow, I say.

almost there! (none / 0) (#29)
by nathan on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 02:08:03 PM PST
Good, good, and what does it mean to actually make "a leap of faith?"[1]

If you still don't twig to my elaborately droll wit, reread the last few posts.

[1] Hint: it may have something to do with theology.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

we've come full circle! (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:52:35 AM PST
If you still don't twig to my elaborately droll wit, reread the last few posts.

Thank you, Nathan. I would never have noticed the ironic humour in "To accept theological opinions on the nature of being is a leap of faith in itself." if you hadn't pointed it out to me. I guess I suck at writing comedy[1].

[1] Hint: deliberately pompous language used in these modern times may be indicative of humour.


how confusing (none / 0) (#31)
by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:39:35 AM PST
What you're trying to say is that you were just making a joke?

I'd believe it if only you'd correctly used the word ironic in your post. Of course, there is nothing ironic about inflating your language. It would be ironic if you actually had been supporting theism in the guise of attacking it, but that wasn't what you were doing.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Thought. (none / 0) (#32)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:31:08 PM PST
Here's a nice, fat two-by-four over the head for you: to accept the existence of anything, whether it's God, the universe, the Pythagorean theorem, your girlfriend, New York City, or the computer you're looking at right now, is a leap of faith. And guess what? That's not even an original thought.

Have fun.


The problem is (none / 0) (#33)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:52:52 PM PST
Science isnt a leap of faith - science makes it clear that its based on explaining the reality we can see.
If you want to debate that the reality we see maybe dosent exist then there is no point debating because if you are right then debate doesnt exist either. So your argument destroys itself.
Its not worth considering the possiblity - its pointless. Its no leap of faith to ignore this possiblility as everything that lives automatically ignores it. If you are alive then you accept reality.

To believe in god is the same as believing that reality doesnt exist. Neither is provable and neither is disprovable. If I stated that god is the ultimate evil how are you going to disprove that? I can make millions of things up which you cant disprove. This doesnt mean you are making a "leap of faith" by ignoring them though does it?


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Thanks for wasting me time (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:42:43 PM PST
Why do you bother to write this shit?

Why did I bother to read it?

Can I have my five seconds back?

Good. (none / 0) (#3)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 12:47:39 PM PST
That means I struck a nerve. That's a good first step in recovery from liberalism; taking it further now requires effort on your own part.

Good luck. Hope you recover.


--
Peace and much love...

He was serious (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 02:51:11 PM PST
He was serious. I know this, because I too felt the same way for wasting my time reading it.


Run along (none / 0) (#8)
by dmg on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 06:49:25 PM PST
And go play with your Liberal toys

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
Yucko! (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 02:35:53 PM PST
Rooting your own brain - they should stick to riding goats.

That's sick!

Bruce

 
Lucidity (none / 0) (#6)
by First Incision on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 06:07:18 PM PST
As a small child, many of my dreams were lucid. Mostly, I would switch my dreams to where I could fly, and I might bring in some GI Joe's and Transformers to spice things up. As I lost my childhood imagination, I gradually lost this ability.

I don't really associate this with Satanism, rather childhood innocence.

But I still have very odd, vivid dreams. (Note many of my diary entries) But I can't control them anymore
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
If you liked that one, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 09:00:13 PM PST
you should see the one in the queue titled "How relevant is your religion?"

Sounds like a good question. (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 12:56:09 AM PST
Does your implicit condemnation mean you don't have a good answer?

What (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 07:38:42 PM PST
implicit condemnation? tkatchev lives for this stuff, I just thought I'd give him a heads-up.

 
refutation was right... (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 03:05:39 AM PST
...when he said that meta crap sucks. Look at what you're doing. You're annoyed by a kur0shin article. So you run along to this site and post a diary about it. Inadvertently, people reading this site are annoyed and post a diary on the Red Flag Linux site. And so on. If you have a bugbear with kurosh1n, please discuss it with the kuroids.

But but (none / 0) (#15)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 05:16:17 AM PST
Kurodroids have a very annoying tendency to delete anything that doesn't harminize with their groupthink. No matter what I post there, it's almost sure to be censored.


--
Peace and much love...

 
I know exactly (none / 0) (#16)
by CommunistPartyAnimal on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 05:35:06 AM PST
what you're talking about. Following this lucid dreaming line of thought leads inevitably to moral decadance and spiritual pollution. At least that's the best thing to tell those midwestern proles. After all, following your dreams is in fact the surest way to the top of the political pyramid. Well IMH experience anyway.

 
Is it just me or... (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 08:12:26 AM PST
is this tantamount to biting the hand that feeds you?

Scoop, the media engine that this site runs on, is written by the good people at kuro5hin, is it not?

Yes, Scoop was written by K5 but ... (none / 0) (#22)
by pyramid termite on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 05:15:09 PM PST
... the people at adequacy.org compiled it with the Authorized King James Version of Visual C++, not that liberal Satanic gcc junk.
He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

That explains so much (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by fluffy grue on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 01:10:18 AM PST
I hadn't realized that MSVC++ had drifted so far from the C++ standard that now it compiles Perl instead...
--
meep

It was either that or ... (4.00 / 1) (#24)
by pyramid termite on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 05:12:04 AM PST
... come out with a product called Visual P.
He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

 
Knock knock? Any brain in there? (2.50 / 2) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 06:33:08 PM PST
Perl is written in C. MSVC++ compiles Perl for Windows precisely because MSVC++ adheres to the ansi C standard.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.