I WON'T LIFT CLOTHED

DRINK THE HEMLOCK

DIE IN MY HOME!

(to the tune of "All the Small Things")

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35769918)

MY slander of lisping Alcibiades

MY totes courageous death

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35769964)

What really goes underappreciated is that Socrates was associated with real traitors like that Alcibiades guy, and the "corrupting the minds of the young" was really about more than Euthyphro dilemma bullshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35769869)

Also he was a legit faggot who boned Anytus' young son.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35769888)

4

Socrates' decadence is suggested not only by the admitted wantonness and anarchy of his instincts, but also by the hypertrophy of the logical faculty and that barbed malice which distinguishes him. Nor should we forget those auditory hallucinations which, as "the daimonion of Socrates," have been interpreted religiously. Everything in him is exaggerated, buffo, a caricature; everything is at the same time concealed, ulterior, subterranean. I seek to comprehend what idiosyncrasy begot that Socratic equation of reason, virtue, and happiness: that most bizarre of all equations which, moreover, is opposed to all the instincts of the earlier Greeks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35769979)

(live life as literature btw)

(read my thus spoke zarathustra book btw)"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35770889)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Nietzsche_paul-ree_lou-von-salome188.jpg

the chick was Lou Andreas-Salomé apparently, who was a nutcase

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Andreas-Salom%C3%A9

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35771235)

Poors have a different physical morphology from the rest of us. You will notice this if you look through police mugshots long enough. There is a very distinct type of poorfugliness that is different from the kinds of ugliness you see in the superior classes. Plenty of kids at elite colleges are ugly, but they are ugly in specific ways. These include failures of symmetry, gawkiness, paleness, blockiness, or plainness.

Poors are ugly as though they were almost, but not quite, retarded. You can see echos of mongolism or downsiness in their faces, as though mom's womb spritzed them with a little tard spray now and then.

Poors in groups live inferior lives. You can take a group of folks from the superior classes, take away their money, and make them live together, but they will never live like poors. They will speak and interact and behave differently. Poors - not merely poor people, or people without money - but POORS - are always recognizable.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=377946&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35770990)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_White

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35771024)

6

One chooses dialectic only when one has no other means. One knows that one arouses mistrust with it, that it is not very persuasive. Nothing is easier to erase than a dialectical effect: the experience of every meeting at which there are speeches proves this. It can only be self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. One must have to enforce one's right: until one reaches that point, one makes no use of it. The Jews were dialecticians for that reason; Reynard the Fox was one -- and Socrates too?

7

Is the irony of Socrates an expression of revolt? Of plebeian ressentiment? Does he, as one oppressed, enjoy his own ferocity in the knife-thrusts of his syllogisms? Does he avenge himself on the noble people whom he fascinates? As a dialectician, one holds a merciless tool in one's hand; one can become a tyrant by means of it; one compromises those one conquers. The dialectician leaves it to his opponent to prove that he is no idiot: he makes one furious and helpless at the same time. The dialectician renders the intellect of his opponent powerless. Indeed? Is dialectic only a form of revenge in Socrates?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35769998)

Nietzsche is saying Socrates won arguments solely through rhetoric, not on the strength of his ideas. And he did this by triumphantly proclaiming the eternal supremacy of his ideas even in the face of death, the ultimate virtue signal. This kind of argumentative approach was later adopted by Christians and became a mainstay of Western society, even after we lost our religion and stopped believing in God. For Nietzsche, modern liberalism was essentially Christianity minus god, employing socratic methods to disguise the fact that it is really just a power grab. Socrates own life exemplifies this, as his acolytes became brutal ANTIFA-like thugs and Socrates seems to have at least tacitly condoned their aggression.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3940077&forum_id=2#35770460)