Click the same link, some more proof:

MTCN: 583-457-7055
Receiver country: Gambia
Amount: $6,065.82 Gambian Dalasi

Proofin' up some more:

MTCN: 180-204-2920
Receiver country: Nigeria
Amount: $44,709.51 Nigerian Naira

Why are you giving this only to girls?

>>184913
I wondered the same thing. That girl in the yellow shirt is pretty attractive too.

>>184913

Nigerian money went to a guy. I usually fund women because

a) less likely to be ex warlords rapists or terriblists
b) more likely to take care of other people/their family instead of gambling and drinking it away
c) DR Congo was voted worst place on earth to be a woman http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/world/africa/female-bearers-in-the-democratic-republic-of-congo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Speaking of terr0rl0rz, one guy I wanted to fund, who was going to help me fund a whole village in Goma with unconditional income, was working for this company called 'Congo Futur' in the DRC. He wanted me to fund his company bank account since there are no banks in Eastern congo. If I had done that, I'd be in jail right now. Good thing I looked them up: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/16/us-congo-democratic-hezbollah-idUSBRE82F0TT20120316

Yeah, so that's why I now just directly fund women, with cash transfers. I had a similar problem trying to get money into Sri Lanka as almost everything there black listed by my government due to 'Tamil terror groups' or some bullshit.

>>184905

>You cannot truly make anyone do anything. If you hold a gun to someones head, tell them to suck your cock, and they do it, then they chose to do it. They could have taken a bullet to the face, but they chose to take a load to the face.

You don't understand my post.

>free will is more about being able to execute actions that are congruent with the concept of self that you have

Being forced to do something against your will is not that. It's more a survival mechanism overruling any normal conscious decisions you would make in absence of a threat to your life. It destroys someones personal integrity and leaves lasting damage to the psyche, I wouldn't call that a willing choice by any means.

>>184906

It's still a choice regardless of whether you like it or not. :p

>>184908
And I argued against that where exactly?

>>184904
You could argue that consciousness is emergent from our physical being, and that it also has influence. But then you have an argument identical to my own, with the addition of a "middleman". It's like running Windows 3 on a legacy setup or via emulation, the end result is the same.

>But just because we don't decide on the rules of these processes ourselves, does that mean that we are not in control

By definition, yes. But it's not just the rules we have no influence over, the input is out of our hands too.

>Free will would then be lost due to mental illness or being forced to do things against your will to avoid an even more severe punishment. Or through more subtle means such as targeted indoctrination.

The scary part is when you realise that humans naturally indoctinate each other simply by socialising. Your ideas, your language, your culture were all invented by others and passed down over centuries. You can't know for sure if anything you think was truly original.

>>184905

>If you hold a gun to someones head, tell them to suck your cock, and they do it, then they chose to do it

Your argument relies on the assumption that there is free will, something which already has a lot of evidence going against it.

>>184912

>But then you have an argument identical to my own, with the addition of a "middleman".

You don't need conscious experience to explain human actions, but it's certainly real.

>By definition, yes. But it's not just the rules we have no influence over, the input is out of our hands too.

We have no control over what reaches our conscious mind, but who's to say we don't control what happens with this information once it is inside our conscious mind? I must admit that I prefer not to use the phrase free will, because the word free is rather ambiguous. Free of what? I like to think: free of the direct influence of other conscious entities in deciding what actions to take and basing these actions on a coherent and mostly consistent mindset specific to the person.

>The scary part is when you realise that humans naturally indoctinate each other simply by socialising. Your ideas, your language, your culture were all invented by others and passed down over centuries. You can't know for sure if anything you think was truly original.

That's true, but there is a difference between intentionally conditioning people to get them to do what you want, or simply passing on information because you believe it to be correct. Propaganda vs. teaching. I don't think teaching itself is scary.

>>184643

I believe in ethical egoism.

My view requires not much more than the acknowledgment that an individual's mind is physically atomistic (I am in no way at one with another mind) and I have the capacity to discern benefit. Due to biodiversity and subjective environmental development, humans are largely unique. This uniqueness necessitates that adherence to any broad "moral laws" that do not stem from or are congruent to one's own ideals are tyranny.

I do not believe in subjecting abstract concepts to dignity, such as "society" or "humanity". I believe social relationships must be purely contractual. This is not to devalue them, but to merely clarify that an individual is in fact atomistic. You are not an extension of your family, cliche, social class, or race, as another man, nor group of men own your mind and body. One has no sensible obligation to partake in non-reciprocal social interactions (i.e. taking punishment, abuse coercion, and confinement for the sake of "the greater good" or some mystical conception of human attachment).

I think these principles enable me to logically deny any infringements upon my self esteem. If I were the least desired creature on Earth, I ought to be unburdened by such a judgement, as I exist for myself and abide by my own principles.

>>184890

>cliche

Clique*

Lol, oh jeez

This will probably be the most clichéd post in this thread, but I'm mostly influenced by absurdism, existentialism, nihilism, epicureanism, zen and, to some extent, by luciferianism. Every once in a while, I suffer from an existential crisis though.

If I have to summarize my world view in a couple of sentences, I guess it would be that I barely care about material stuff, but find most meaning in love, friendship, interesting ideas and creating meaning for yourself - with a little touch of hedonism every once in a while. I hate institutes, people and things that try to control/limit me, even - or especially - when this happens in an unconscious way. And one of the most damaging things you can do to yourself is to take life (and things that emanate from life) too serious.

I think of my beliefs as being somewhat gnostic or Neoplatonic with some zen thrown in for good measure. I believe that the existence of a supreme being is necessary not only for meaning but for the coherence of the observable universe. I do not believe in a personal god or a god that acts in our daily lives. I do not believe that salvation is necessarily something that can be attained or is worth trying to obtain. I do not believe the existence of the panentheistic deity I kind of believe in can be proven or is worth trying to convince others of. I define my beliefs against Christianity and the belief in the divinity of Jesus or the supreme will of God being relevant at all.
My idea of God is 'that which is greater than the sum of all parts,' meaning a being which exists as the unity of all that exists (and must exist, if God is to be complete) and then a little bit beside that. I believe the laws of physics are results of the development of our universe without any kind of divine intervention, coming about by chance in the form they have, and that in other universes (which I believe in) they are not the same. I believe there is life elsewhere in our universe, but I doubt we would recognize all of it or even the vast majority as life in the terms we use to describe plant and animal or even bacterial life on Earth.

>>184910
So you don't believe in salvation, or that natural order is divine in nature, you don't believe there's a god looking out for us.

Why then, is a supreme being necessary for meaning or coherence? By your own logic, any being is totally redundant.

>>184747
shut up.

Psychologist here

The reason I personally advocate for mediation is because of this simple idea

Most (not all) mental illness's stem from what can be called "Disorganized thinking"

Deficits in the way they process information, and detect signals. (Information processing model/Signal detection theory)

See with illness's such as say Schizophrenia, or PTSD, these are MIND issues. And what antipsychotic drugs attempt to do is manipulate the brain side of things, neurotransmitters, dopamine levels etc. But the problem is those are just the observable effects of these illness's and not tackling the illness itself.

Now with mediation, meditation can be a great way for people to get control over their thoughts. I always dealt with anxiety in my late teenage years and meditation really helped me


You see with meditation you can learn the ability to observe your thoughts rather than engage them and I always find this incredibly useful, especially with anxiety.

Now while meditation alone certainly wont cure you of a serious mental disorder alone, it can absolutely help. Things like finding inner peace, positive introspection all that type of shit. So for the purpose of asking advice from strangers on the internet saying they should go meditate is probably one of the better answers you'll get

>>184862

I often notice that non-psychologist academics know more about the field than its specialists.

>>184862
Sounds like a load of bullocks. No offence to you.

Been a recluse for years. Meditation hasn't helped me in the least.

Every problem is biological imo. People who have addictive personalities can not be that way if something was changed biologically. Same with any mental problem. I personally can't wait for a future where everything is cured biologically.

>>184898
That's an oversimplification. Say that somebody believes that the Earth is flat. Can you envision a biological cure for that wrong idea about the world? Of course not. A "cure" for that has to operate on the level of concepts and the mind.

Similarly, if somebody is depressed because they have unrealistic expectations of the world, a distorted self-image, low self-esteem, etc, or if they get anxious and stressed because they tend to overthink everything, the root of the problem is in the "mind" framework, not in the "brain" framework, and the best tool to treat it is one that works in the same level.
Assuming we ever have perfect knowledge of how the human brain works, it might not be completely impossible to develop a drug or nanomachine that goes into your head and "corrects" these thoughts, but leaving aside the horrific implications of such a technology, it seems like a lot of work to fix something that can be more easily fixed in other ways. It's like that joke about how NASA spent millions of dollars to develop a pen that worked in space while the Soviets took pencils.

>>184865

>I've never really thought of "social philosophy" as something unto itself.

I'm just loosely talking about writings that address social issues as opposed to writings that address fundamental questions of reality.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can get into philosophical works that dissect stuff like government or culture. That's the shit we as people built up over time, and studying it is kind of like examining our own shit. I'd much rather read different attempts to thoroughly explain what time is or what the fundamental nature of reality is a la Shopenhauer's "will."

Social philosophy is kind of analogous to country music in that they both bother me with their really specific, mundane, and dated content. A good lyric in my mind is sufficiently detached and otherwordly so it doesn't interfere with the music and can be experienced as somewhat transcendent in its art, while a shitty lyric is obnoxiously issue specific and personal, hence why Black Hole Sun has great lyrics and that "where were you when the terrorists did 9/11 or whatever" song has awful lyrics.

>>184872

>studying it is kind of like examining our own shit

Why do you think dogs and doctors do it? You can learn a lot about yourself and other people. You don't really explain why it's irrelevant. I mean, just like the healthfulness of or lack of control over one's shit, people take the value and permanence of various aspects of society for granted quite often. They only realize its arbitrary, particular nature when they're made aware through philosophy, just like people with first-time constipation learn about stool softener. The main importance of this is gaining the ability and will to change one's own shit/society.

>the music and can be experienced as somewhat transcendent in its art

Your whole lyric analogy seems like a huge tangent where you start out relating things to some kind of value and then go on to define that value as beauty, which is just personal preference. But you really objectivize your love for pure math and try to project it onto reality, ironically, without explaining how it's fundamental. You sound like a space alien who can't get into human being and can't even admit that.

It has been proven by many linguists/philosophers, namely Chomsky and Pinker, that linguistic relativism (the fancy name for the hyposthesis that OP described), is patently untrue as a hypothesis. Thought is something instinctive and underlying to all humans. Just because a particular language is good/bad at expressing a certain thought, doesn't mean that native speakers of that language are unable to think in a certain way. If that were the case, than humans would certainly not be as creative and inventive a species as we are. Even though your mind 'thinks' in your native language (for me, English), if you pay attention, you already know what you want to think/say, even before the words are formulated in your mind. Cognitive philosophers have named this 'language' of the mind Mentalese. There is some dispute on the syntax order of mentalese phrases, for example, one thought expressed in english might be, Gary spilled his milk, dirtying the floor. Expressed in mentalese, it might be (depending on the focus of the thought), [gary spill milk] cause [floor dirty], or maybe [milk on floor] caused by [gary spill milk]. Of course, these are theories, but experiments have been conducted on people with different ways of expressing things in their native languages (for example, some languages have dark and light as the only way to describe a colour, yet in experiments these people have been shown to learn new words for colours quite easily). Anyway, read Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct, he describes it much better than I do, and it makes for a fascinating read if you care about this sort of thing.

>>184863

the problem i see with most sociological thinkers is their tendency for reductionism (ironic i know).

theres a common theme of good analysis of some subset of condition, then going full retard with the normative conclusions, usually as a result of taking that one thing as the end all be all of condition.

>>184874

>You sound like a space alien who can't get into human being...

Nah, I do get into human beings on occasion at my local BDSM dungeon.

>you start out relating things to some kind of value and then go on to define that value as beauty, which is just personal preference.

>...without explaining how it's fundamental.

There's not much mystery to it. In a very basic sense, there's a difference between the personal and specific vs. the abstract and sublime. "Fundamental" is a word that captures a similar meaning to "abstract" and "sublime," where if we want to nail this down more, "fundamental" suggests the base or ground level of things.

"Abstract" is about (as far as the context of this discussion is concerned anyway) the fundamental qualities we can identify and examine independent of the mundane, specific situations that participate in their forms.

The "sublime" is the perspective that, due to its closer position to the fundamental, takes what we ordinarily hold as valuable (e.g. TV or movies or work deadlines or politics or relationships) and powerfully submerges them in a context with magnitudes more in the way of gravity and significance (e.g. that feeling the victims must have when faced with the realization they are about to be at the mercy of a tornado and all the available man made structures and technology are transformed from the realest things they have to an anthill or a set of cardboard cutout props giving way to the higher context of reality outside of a play).

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>184831
Well fuck, this awfully much for just one guy. I'd get angry and start trying to toy with them to the extent that I could hide from them, and I would try all sorts of disguises. Depending on how severely they would creep on me, I might try to kill them in isolated instances.

>>184832

How specifically would you toy with them? And what if you killed one and since they knew where you were (one of them was there after all) they immediately got you arrested, the police may even be in on it. Remember that only a handful of activists were against the Truman Show. They literally risked drowning him to keep him in the show.

>>184833
Well it seems like I'm fucked from the start, in spite of any effort otherwise? Regardless this scenario only works if you have any level of trust in other people, so options or become a hermit or lose all sense of intrinsic meaning. There's no way after discovering the truth am I just going to play along until I die. The police are just another imposing force I would have to detain. Obviously the only way to attain escape is deception or murder. Truman used the former along with sailing skills. Still I would get some puss from one the actors before I skip that shit.

>Can you prove or disprove the Truman Show

Easy.

If Truman managed to break through to reality, we all can break through to reality.

Therefore, what you experience is reality.

Chaos theory motherfucker, you can't create a perfect system. Life finds a way.

>>184814
The Truman show actually represented how both societies reject the reality they are in through the form of escapism, whether or not it is true. The idea is of a social solipsistic ideal, where we systematically reject the complexities of the world around us. This is why we get addicted to the alternative realities we see in TV shows, and films. The idea being that if we would reject the notion of a real reality no matter how much it appealed to us, because we would see it as more complex than the life we currently live in. Truman only left because his life became more complex in response to the life he idealized outside. Also, I have autism.

>>184868

>However, there are other men, although not many in all, that have apprehended this same thing, and then went on to learn a great deal more.

Who are these men you talk of? Have you read Nietzsche? Have you understood him?

>What these men all share in common is their refusal to place negative value judgements on that universe, once they've apprehended it.

Nietzsche did not place negative "value judgements" on the universe (you say "on that universe", but you're phrasing yourself poorly since there's only one universe lol); Nietzsche placed negative "value judgements" on PARTS of the universe. The universe as a whole is perfectly fine. "But how can the universe be perfect as a whole, if parts of it aren't?" WOW MAGIC, etc.

>When one IS the universe, making negative value judgements does not follow.

So now I'm not allowed to say anything lol? Can I prefer blonds, plz?

>(...)negative value judgements provide an escape from examination. The examination of that thing becomes painful to us, and we respond by insulting the thing, and the more vehemently we hurl insults at it, it just shows the more we have blocked this thing out of true examination.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Only in /pss/ would a thread like this get so many replies.

>>184870

>thread about philosophy
>only /pss/ would reply to it

That's sort of the reason we have this board.

>>184866
>>184869
I think your posts basically nailed it better than I have been able to the whole thread.

>>184451
Nietzsche should have just gone a little bit further but he didn't and went crazy. I usually see Nietzsche as a bit of an idiot and the man who almost made it. His intellect isn't anything compared to today's standard anyway.

>>184821
Good point, but I think it's more a result of how the individual views gender and which one they feel better represents their personality.

>>184805
That's truly interesting.

>>184821
What state? What state will your children be in? What does it matter?

"Alone I sat | when the Old One sought me,
The terror of gods, | and gazed in mine eyes:
"What hast thou to ask? | why comest thou hither?
Othin, I know | where thine eye is hidden."

Sex is genetic
Gender is social

>>184827
Although this sounds progressive, it's actually just a different take on the traditionalist view. Once you realise that gender is a social construct, the next step shouldn't be to simply pick which option you like the most. The next step is to disregard the preconcieved ideas society has for you.

>>184793

>I didn't say a gender role was more dysfunctional did I?

I was being sarcastic. I was saying that.

> I think a man without a woman is just as functional as a woman without a man.

I don't, especially after socialization.

>deep evolutionary duality of man and woman
>mate picking which is influenced by culture

Isn't it possible that, through artificial selection, one sex could become a parasite upon the other, maybe even losing regard to reproductive fitness because they value/are valued by some sort of decadent unreliable indicators?

>>184579

>"My name is Susan, I'm a warm compassionate mother and loving wife, whose a CEO of one of the top 5 corporations in the country."

>We have these schemas of ourselves to give meaning because we don't understand why we're living them and since they will one day end we should put them to use.

You're saying that how a person describes herself is personality I think. The concept is more about what people tend do in a given situation than how they perceive themselves, don't confuse self-perception to personality.



>>184733

The same for you. The one personality that exist in a singular instance is the continuous process of the brain of said person. Whatever pictures people have of themselves or each other are constructs created by them alone and thus nothing compared to the full personality profile of an actual individual.

OP when people ask who are you? (to me) what do I say?
Or when people say, introduce yourself or tell me about yourself

Or in general, when people ask who YOU are, what do you say?

>>184759

Not OP, but I'd say these question seem meaningless to me because they're so vague. Also they lack context so I can't even make a guess as to what they'd want to know about me specifically.
Not knowing anything, I'd say the first thing that comes to mind, like things I enjoy doing, or what job I work for, things that I do in my life basically. If they're truly interested in something else about me in particular, they'll correct the aim themselves.

"Modern human" history is ending. Psychedelics will soon be transferred into cyberspace. That is, a truly developed form of it will be created in the neoshamanic realm of virtual culture and it's revived orgiastic behavior. Humans will again have access to the realm of consciousness that previously existed only in the subconscious. All beliefs will merge into one, religious and scientific epiphanies included. It will be like a set of scientific or cultural references to themes of human behavior, all stored in virtual space. It'll be enough information for the future generations to ponder on, but first we'll have to bring about the Archaic Revival in order to collect this data, that is, to make the experiences of the now really about the now, and as widely accessible to genuine people as possible. Not all psychedelic people are genuine yet.

>>184843
It's really very easy to interpret any period of human history, if you have access to data, but that's becoming more and more irrelevant now. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. We may just have to destroy 98% of our population.

>>184823
Check out Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche), it's got plenty of vexing questions and such that relate back to Plato.

>>184693
so how does that work? does a male rape another then go "ok im the alpha male, you'll do what i say" and somehow being assfucked makes him less of a man?
WELL WHAT IF YOU TIED SOMEONE UP AND GAVE THEM VIAGRA AND THEM MOUNTED THEM WITH UR ANUS?

>>184715

>WELL WHAT IF YOU TIED SOMEONE UP AND GAVE THEM VIAGRA AND THEM MOUNTED THEM WITH UR ANUS?

If you videotaped it, you'd probably get Internet famous.

>>184715

well actually its more like, the beta male lets the alpha male fuck him in the ass cuz it not only feels good but also makes their relationship feel right. accepting a dick inside you is an emotionally vulnerable experience and letting another dude fuck you is saying, consciously or subconsciously, I trust your manly superiority in this

>>184760
I don't know a human being, male or female can enjoy things as big as a cock throbbing their asshole. They all seem to have to be trained and women take it in the ass way more than homosexual men (truefax, sodomy is more common in heterosexual couples). I've had a finger in there to make me cum from my gf sometimes to touch that g spot to make me finally cum when I am binging on speed with her but something large like a cock that also moves in fast and hard inside your ass...no, it is not really natural to enjoy this, it is a nurtured practice, not making it evil, but I imagine if i was this kind of guy who likes to be pegged by a woman (lolno) I could be trained into enjoying it, I just don't enjoy pain, even sometimes she hurt me with just a tiny finger trying to push on my prostate so that's why it doesn't even happen often.

tl;dr Saying that anal sex feels good by default is a fallacy.

>>184783

Vaginal sex has historically been nasty business for most women because people weren't taught about G-spots, clitoris and so forth until the late 60's early 70's, before that sexual relations were taboo in public speech

I guarantee you if you fuck a woman who isn't horny, or is frigid or whatever, she will not have a good time.

tl;dr saying that vaginal sex feels good by default is a fallacy

Why not just buy an encyclopedia on philosophy and read it? Internet is great, but sometimes books are just better suited for pursuing knowledge.

You seem to have a problem (or problems) you can't solve, and you seem to believe that the only thing you can do to solve it is to do something about your lack of general knowledge. Well unless your need to pass an exam, ace an IQ test, or impress someone with knowledge, it won't help you.
I don't think you're stupid: from the few lines you've written you seem pretty self-conscious and open to accepting other point of views.
Maybe the hurdle right now is that you feel deeply discouraged. If this is the case, going the road you want to take might just take you back to the starting point, because the problem will still be there, or in the worst case, take you to be even more hopeless because you won't get results. Even in the best case scenario, if some book accidentally make you acquire more clarity, it won't take you anywhere if you're not willing to use it to face directly whatever is troubling you.
Whichever way this road may take you, it could be a pretty long journey before it has any effect.

I don't know why I took you to heart, maybe because the last line resonates very strongly with my past (and present) experiences.. I even went this route looking for a solution, just like you seem to be doing. I say all of this so this won't sound too weird:
If you want to talk to me, I'm available, just say so and I'll drop my e-mail address.
If you want to open a thread on /qq/, post a link, and I promise I will answer it and follow it.
If you decide to go the knowledge route, I will help you this way too. I have some experience in searching for answers while feeling lost.

Oh yeah, and things like ego. You can't ignore the fracturing of the mind into the equation. I hear about those things, but I can't tell what thoughts of mine come from where.

>>184718
because I'm not sure an encyclopedia would answer my question on whether it exists, without reading the entire thing. I was hoping someone would know if it existed.

>>184729
So you believe language can't change anything, or at least a specific level of communication through it. I'm not sure that I believe language only helps in the imaginary world (where on one extreme maybe it could get you more money, but what would that really change?).

>it won't take you anywhere if you're not willing to use it to face directly whatever is troubling you.

and you don't believe language can change that? is there a set of experiences that will change that? I hear about all these experiments on children that instill fear in them, make them insecure and dependent on others well into adulthood, but I don't hear enough detail that shows how you can reverse it.

Yeah, sure on the email.

>>184739

Hey, >>184729 here. Sorry for the holdup, I've been busy these days. I put my email address here: http://pastebin.com/5vhbB8tm