420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
If Muslims were White by Charles Hoffingshaw - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207974 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 65536
100% serious question, this is about how society responds to race.

How would the conversation about Muslims change if they weren't mostly brown, but instead mostly white?
Like, what if the 9/11 guys were white, and all these people fighting in the ME were white, all the people bombing India and Malaysia were white, all the people who were banned by Trump were white? What if the people wearing Burqas that were being banned were all white?
How would people react? What would they say?
48 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Doris Channerkut - Tue, 02 May 2017 05:22:12 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.208083 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208080
Fuck off back to circlejerk you fucking stormfront immigrant. Fuck off, your kind is not wanted here.
>>
Lillian Susslestone - Wed, 03 May 2017 12:01:14 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.208095 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208083
Reported.
Your kind is not wanted here.
>>
Graham Crarryworth - Wed, 03 May 2017 12:10:09 EST ID:BlTpIi6J No.208096 Report Quick Reply
1493827809139.jpg -(118473B / 115.70KB, 780x553) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207974
I'd say suck my MOAB, bitches!
>>
Syn !ryBONGJej. - Wed, 03 May 2017 12:11:28 EST ID:BlTpIi6J No.208097 Report Quick Reply
>>208095
>>208083
Both of you stop fighting.
>>
Jenny Dungerspear - Mon, 08 May 2017 08:32:51 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.208126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208097
So kind of you, Syn, to tell both of us to stop fighting when this jagoff just came up to me austistically screeching while I was actively discussion philosophy.
Just lump me, the one philosophizing, in with the "GO BACK TO 4SKIN" thread derailers.


Game of Thrones by Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:02:01 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207967 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1491228121844.jpg -(824344B / 805.02KB, 1400x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 824344
Let's talk about a subject everyone can understand; Game of Thrones.
Who your favorite GoT characters are, in my opinion, says a lot about who you are as a person.

Of course, my favorite character by far is Cersei Lannister. She truly deserves the Iron Throne. I originally loved Robert Baratheon, Ed Stark and Drogo, but they all died on me very quickly. Now, after all 6 seasons, I have to say that Cersei is truly an amazing character. I also loved Ramsay Bolton very much, as he was the sort of Hannibal Lecter of Westeros. His antics often ended with me proclaiming aloud, 'Oh Ramsay.'
>>
Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:05:26 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207968 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To tackle this subject from a philosophical point of view, I guess it's just impressive to see how much willpower Cersei has. Cersei is definitely a fearless hedonist with more emotional strength than any of the other characters. She never makes half-hearted moves, and she never tells the truth. Truly, she is a warrior woman like Robert Barathion, only Robert was a warrior on the battlefield while Cersei is a warrior at politics, a titan behind closed-doors.
>>
Walter Donningforth - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:38:31 EST ID:KvXjjDsO No.208006 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My favorite philosophical meaning is between Ned stark and vaerys before ned stark's eventual beheading. Where vaerys tries to explain his understanding of this as preternaturally related to his time in a theatrical troupe. And how he understands power and the realm the same way.
>>
Ian Blythestock - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:42:27 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208011 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My favorite character is Tyrion. I guess I find him relateable since I'm more of a behind the scenes type of leader, but he's pragmatic, a tactician, and takes the lead when he has to make difficult decisions for what he believes is the correct reasons.

Cersei is definitely a boss and a half and I have alot of respect for her "no half-measures" approach.

I liked Jon Snow alot in the books, but I feel like he's not been done justice in the show. He's a warrior baptized in fire, never groomed for leadership but assumed it because he was needed, rejecting tradition in favor of survival.

I guess that's what truly connects all of them for me, they were unassuming, thrust into great trials that challenged their lives, and rose above the adversity more powerful and defiant in the face of death.

They are all true survivors.

Danaerys is too emotional for me with her decision making. Which contradicts me support of Jon Snow since he ruined his well entrenched position vs the Bolton's to save his brother, but it's his brother ya know? I mean, I can let that slide. It'd be hard to watch a little sibling be massacred in front of you and doing nothing about it.


Meditation by Phoebe Goodforth - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:45:31 EST ID:/XQxUE3u No.204775 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453218331804.jpg -(552057B / 539.12KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 552057
Hey guys I'm just starting to learn how to meditate. So far I can go up to 3 minutes and after that I can't focus any longer. But, I'd say I'm starting off good.

How many of you here meditate on a daily basis? In what way does it help you? What is your favorite type of meditation?

I'm learning sleep meditation and zen. I want to broaden my horizons and love myself again. With this meditation I hope to achieve a higher level of being and be able to like myself and have a positive outlook on life.
121 posts and 12 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cornelius Fugglewill - Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:00:40 EST ID:pQdbKKB2 No.207946 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Have any of you ever been to a Buddhist temple to learn the true art of meditation and Buddhism? I've been thinking about going and staying there for as long as I possibly can and learn a lot of philosophical teachings. For those who have done it, what's your experience?
>>
Matilda Brasslemotch - Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:09:09 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207947 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207946
Well, it depends on what you mean by "Buddhist temple." If you mean any of the number of Buddhist centers throughout the world that exist specifically for outreach and to act as community centers, these are probably great places for you to go and learn, although in a lot of cases you cannot stay there.

If you're thinking of going to the Himalayas to bug native monks to unscramble your western psyche with months of vigorous mental discipline,Karate Kid style...either be prepared to be seen right through, or pay through the nose for someone to ignore how they see right through.
>>
William Grandcocke - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:42:01 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207948 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207946

I haven't done it myself, but I would say that you should meditate and try to find a place locally and talk to them and learn with them and practice with them if you're interested in such things. I think reading the sutras has value too but that might not do much for you if you aren't approaching it from within the tradition. This is assuming you haven't done this already. If you have, then you should know someone who you can talk to about these things who would be more equipped to talk about these things.
>>
Cyril Lightdock - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:11:10 EST ID:A8KcvEdU No.208002 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491804670421.jpg -(30332B / 29.62KB, 620x430) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207946
Not Buddhism but I visited the local mosque for the second time ever. Theres something about praying to Allah, with a group of other gentlemen, that set it apart from meditating alone
>>
Jack Trotfield - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:51:11 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208005 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491857471626.png -(25856B / 25.25KB, 325x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208002


Zoroastrianism by Hannah Haddlestone - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 03:26:24 EST ID:Vz5f1vq5 No.207599 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484468784066.gif -(617831B / 603.35KB, 320x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 617831
Yo /pss/,

What do you recommend I read if I want to know more about Zoroastrianism? Specifically orthodox but I'm open to any good material on the subject. My limitedresearch so far keeps telling me that the original holy texts are all written in a language that doesn't really translate well, so unlike other religions I can't just go and read their holy book because I've had trouble understanding which texts are the equivalent of canon. I want to get a deeper understanding than just what's in the wikipedia article, Help a dude out?
5 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:53:26 EST ID:taL6BOqF No.207949 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490626406387.jpg -(197616B / 192.98KB, 800x1204) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207922
>would you mind giving us a brief history of that outline?
I can try, but be warned, I'm no historian.

As far as I can tell, there isn't an authoritative dating for their first appearances, but historians in antiquity usually attributed the first written gathas to around 1000BC to the prophet Zartosht (Zoroaster).

According the the scriptures, Zoroaster presented his writings to his patron Vishtaspa around 1000BC, the teachings were put in to practice there and the writings preserved until the conquest of Alexander the Great when the religion was suppressed and its texts looted/burned. However portions of the texts appear in Greek-made translations at this time (around 4-3rd Century BC) and there was a great diffusion of these writings throughout the Hellenic world.

After this period, there was a revivalist movement beginning under King Valaxš of Arsacid Persia, and the old-Avesta, as historians call it, was completed under Shapur II during the Sasanian Empire, around the 4th century.

Zoroastrianism was the state-religion of the Sasanian Empire so this is where the teachings acquired their orthodoxy. The accounts of the scholars of this period on the origins of the texts are unreliable and based on legend. The only dating of the gathas is done by linguistic analysis, so it's extremely unclear. According to the article I posted: "Until the advent of the Sasanians, and even under their regime, Iran was a country in which written documents were conspicuously rare... It is clear that the writers of the Pahlavi books shared our ignorance of the prehistory of the Avesta. However, we can concede that it does preserve the memory (though in legendary form) of a real break in the religious tradition, or of its splitting into sects, as a result of the absence of a unifying political power after the Greek conquest"

After the Sasanian empire until the rise of Islam not a lot is known:

"Of the history of the Avestan texts from the collapse of the Sasanian empire and the oldest manuscripts in our possession little is known. We know that the Muslim conquest and the dispersal of the Mazdean communities caused a weakening of the religious tradition and a decline of the liturgical elocution, which caused damage to the written transmission of the Avesta. Also, examination of the manuscripts reveals mistakes which prove that all of them derive from a single common ancestor, which K. Hoffmann (Aufsätze II, p. 515) calls the “base manuscript” and places in the ninth to tenth century A.D."
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Simon Dreddletirk - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:26:09 EST ID:GoJD6tHg No.207950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207949
Please do. Did you get all that info from the site you linked?
>>
Ghengis Dong - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:20:08 EST ID:mQSzo9rp No.207952 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490761208047.jpg -(16427B / 16.04KB, 236x238) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207950
>Did you get all that info from the site you linked?

Yup. But when I read over my post, I notice a couple necessary revisions and poorly worded parts which irk the shit out of me:

"Old Avesta" is not a historical term, but commonly refers to the original Gathas.

Our oldest manuscripts that reference them come from Hellenic Era scholars.

During the Arsacid, Seleucid ,and Parthian Empires (reign varied throughout the region, but roughly 3rd century BC to 3rd century AD), long periods of foreign rule and strife led to movements which attempted to reclaim/revive the heritage of the Achaemenid Empire (pre-Hellenic Persia) and its holy texts (the gathas).

The Sasanian Empire rising in the 3rd century AD would enforce a strict codified form of the religion which venerated these texts, the gathas, still preserved in archaic old -Persian from centuries prior (sometimes referred to itself as the old-Avesta).

In addition they would compile the bulk of the "Yasna", hymns and rituals deemed canon, which includes practices developed in the later Parthian period (hence why it differs linguistically and has been informally referred to as the "young-avesta")
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:46:48 EST ID:taL6BOqF No.207969 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491245208202.jpg -(11210B / 10.95KB, 267x188) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207952
Kay I'll begin with an examination of the original gathas:

In these verses Zoroaster gives devotion to Ahura-Mazda. The supreme being. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahura-mazda

"Some of the words spoken of Ahura Mazdā (aka: Ohrmuzd) in the Avesta have echoes in Vedic celebrations of Mitra and Varuṇa. In one evidently archaic verse (Y. 41.3) his worshippers say to him, “We establish Thee as the god possessing good supernatural power (maya-), zealous, accompanied by aša,” while in the Gāthās Zoroaster hails him as “all-seeing” (Y. 45.4) and “seeing afar” (Y. 33.13), the one “whom none deceives” (Y. 43.6). The prophet also speaks of him as “clad in hardest stone” i.e. the sky (Y. 30.5), although he also uses terms which suggest an anthropomorphic concept, in keeping with general Indo-Iranian religious tradition, e.g. “the tongue of Thy mouth” (Y. 31.3, cf. Y. 28.11), “the hand with which Thou holdest. . .” (Y. 43.4). Zoroaster gave a wholly new dimension to his worship, however, by hailing him as the one uncreated God (Y. 30.3, 45.2), wholly wise, benevolent and good, Creator as well as upholder of aša

aša is Truth and is the highest virtue. It is counterposed by "drug" (sometimes "druj") the Lie. All evil stems from deception. Just as Mazda is the uncreated manifestation of truth and virtue he has an uncreated counterpart or 'twin' in the form of Angra Mainyu (aka: Ahriman).

"This is the Hostile Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Zoroastrian tradition (e.g., Bundahišn 1.3) states plainly what is adumbrated in the Gāthās, that Ahura Mazdā became the Creator (Av. Dadvah, Dātār, Pahl. Dādār)—this being his constant appellation—to destroy Angra Mainyu, and so to achieve a universe that was wholly good. In one Gathic verse he is said to have achieved creation by his “thought” (Y. 31.11), but elsewhere his instrument is said to have been his Holy or Bounteous Spirit, Spənta Mainyu"

The first of Ahura Mazdā’s creative acts was to emanate the six great Beings known from the tradition as the Aməša Spəntas ("ahuras" or Spirits in the original gathas). These along with Spənta Mainyu make 7 divine entities but it's not strictly speaking polytheistic

"The relationship of Ahura Mazdā to the six Aməša Spəntas is again a subtle one, and its closeness is expressed metaphorically by the prophet when he calls Ahura Mazdā the father of Aša and of Vohu Manah... but it is conveyed even more vividly by his addressing Ahura Mazdā now [sic] as “Thou,” now (when he conceives of him together with one or more of the Aməša Spəntas)
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:04:31 EST ID:taL6BOqF No.207971 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207969
sorry for so many problems with the characters/accents. When the thread is expanded it reads as normal.

nb


"Ethics" by Polly Cezzlestock - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:49:27 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207869 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1489189767598.jpg -(494515B / 482.92KB, 1152x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 494515
So, CRISPR is coming into its own. If you don't know about this new gene-engineering technique, then check this link:

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9

Essentially it's a rehash of a natural system found in protists that's now used to make targeted and precise edits in any genome the user wants. It's revolutionizing genetical biology world-wide, but the research into its obvious health implications is stymied by so called ethics in most of the first world.

So I'd like to discuss ethics and science. I'm just not talking about CRISPR, but general modern miracles of science that's hampered by old-world thinking like surrogacy, embryonic stem-cell research or replacement of mitochondria in fertilized cells Which can heal an inherited, rare and lethal decease but is outlawed in most of the world because courts decided the resulting child ends up with "three parents", even though the child only share mitochondrial DNA with the donor.


Now obviously I'm on the liberal side of the debate here, but I wanna know what /pss/ think about these new technologies. Should we play "god" in order to save/improve lives, or is there a thin red line Humanity shouldn't cross? Are these ethical concerns really grounds for outlawing certain possible techniques, or are these ethics remnants of a world where life was the realm of religion?
>>
Frederick Chezzlewick - Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:20:44 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207871 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ignoring personal experiences due to a nephew dying at the age of 7 from a genetic disease, fucking hell yeah we need to play God.

We will need all the tools we can get to ensure that humanity will survive the coming 10,000 years and won't end up as a bunch of fossils.
>>
Cyril Gadgekeg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:13:33 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207900 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207869
Speaking as one that was born with a unique and extremely rare disease, yes. Yes, let's "play god". It's one thing to only give this tech to the elites so they can change their DNA to make them into supreme geniuses and everyone else becomes a slave caste.

It's another thing to cure disease. Imagine reversing down syndrome and these one's can actually lead a life of greater potential.

Only people that disagree with such a thing are religious goobers and or people that have no idea what it's like to live with an illness.

David Pakman recently with Matthew Liao on this very subject: http://philtech.io/class-blog/2016/11/the-crispr-future-might-be-a-little-blurred/ (not the interview. it's currently for members atm. )

The idea of being cured yet having religious morons taking that cure away from me and others infuriates me. It's like those moral turds that go against assisted suicide when someone is dying from terminal cancer. Who are these people? Where did they get their nerve?

Fuck your ethics! Give me the goods, doc!
>>
Nathaniel Trotstock - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:34:27 EST ID:USA6SDn7 No.207956 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Being afraid of "playing god" is for people haunted by spooks.

CRISPR everyone up, fam.


Family by Caroline Nossleshaw - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:30:15 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207850 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488987015842.jpg -(47743B / 46.62KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 47743
What's up with family? What's up with heritage?
These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?
Family is a group of people you share genetics with, who you have no choice of selecting, and heritage is people/events that have happened long in the past that you may be connected to genetically.
I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage; you had nothing to do with it. I don't understand the point of being proud of your family; they're not you, nor are they people you've chosen to have in your life. And I don't understand the point of loving people simply because you share a genetic bond; there's nothing special about my genetics or anyone's genetics, really.

So what's up with this stuff? Why is it so significant to people?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:32:06 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207927 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What's up with family?

Without your family you wouldn't exist or you'd be dead, assuming you weren't rescued by some third party

>What's up with heritage?

Your culture is what your ancestors have been building for years and years, and there's a lot of value that comes with the cultures we're lucky enough to inherit. You're basically asking what the value of culture is. Heritage is accumulated culture across time and generations.

>These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?

Because they know that without the human beings in their inner circle, which in most cases has the family at the center, and their culture, they would be swimming in an ocean of chaos and death that they wouldn't be able to deal with at all. The alternative is being born in the wilderness alone and freezing to death immediately or being eaten by something.

>I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage

Your ancestors produced societies (and survived successfully pre-agriculture, which is in some ways even more remarkable) that allowed their genes to propagate over hundreds of years, which is pretty much a miracle in its unlikelihood, not to mention all the benefits of culture that you benefit from. Without these things you wouldn't have a history, which would mean you wouldn't have any foundation to build the future on, you wouldn't have art, you wouldn't be able to read these words or have any conception of what words are, etc.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Sidney Bimmlestitch - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:49:00 EST ID:p5PWfvYz No.207931 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207927
>you are the product of thousands of years of natural selection.
Natural selection isn't a process . Its closer to the lack of a process. Its fairer to say "you are whats left over after thousands of years of natural selection."
Not trying to be a dick just autism
>>
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:38 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207932 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207931

I see what you're saying I think. Basically life just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and we're what stuck because it worked well enough.
>>
David Pickdock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:04:27 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207931
It's still a process. Process doesn't necessarily imply intention or thought. The reactions of chemistry are described as processes, and occur as an entropic breakdown in the same way that evolution does, yet are still fantastically complex and multi-staged enough to be described as 'processes.'

Not trying to be a dick but just autisming harder.
>>
Isabella Brucklespear - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:00:54 EST ID:uRNFOzYS No.207954 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207931
I disagree with you too, but not for David's reasons. I think that natural selection can seem like "a lack of a process" in that randomness has a huge effect on it, however on an evolutionary scale, myriad traits have substantial effects on the results of selection. Not trying to be a dick just aiming for max autis


What do you think of a real life vigilante? by Polly Bundock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:50:01 EST ID:MTaj+oHu No.207586 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484365801125.png -(216720B / 211.64KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 216720
First of all this vigilante would have 100% evidence proving the person he killed was a horrible person. Like pimps taking advantage of children, gang members who's destroying youth and robberies, large drug dealers(not weed), rapists, serious frauds who ruined lives...

Basically anyone with lack of respect for life.

This vigilante would not be one of those "I believe this guy is guilty so I'm going to kill him" vigilantes, but one that abides by facts and evidence. Or let's say there's 100% evidence of a murder or rape but ended up walking free and plans on killing/raping again?

Now don't get me wrong I'm against murder, but sometimes there must be an exception.

Would vigilante justice be justified?

Share your thoughts.
39 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:43:58 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207834
>Either America has a police problem, they have a crime problem, or both.
Meh, it's neither. The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem. Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

All that stuff in the news about police brutality is bullshit. I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news, and I realized and verified that every story was false, except for like 2. Like, there was a case of a flash-bang grenade frying a baby. That's undoubtedly brutality. But then I'd see countless cases of the cops man-handling a violent black perp and all the blacks would scream BRUTALITY! or a video would surface of a black man escaping resisting arrest and then getting shot, and BLM and so on and so forth would screech BRUTALITY!

Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.

But there were also some mishaps. For instance, at one point, the cops gunned down a little kid, and no one got in trouble. Why? Well, the kid was aiming an airsoft AK47 at the police when he was shot, and the AK47 was modified to look real, as in all the safety features, like the orange nozzel, were taken away from the gun to make it look like a real AK. Mind you, the person who reported the child said that the gun appeared fake, however the dispatcher never mentioned the 'looked fake' part to the police being dispatched so they were told, 'Black kid is running around with a gun' and they gunned him down on sight pretty much because he aimed the gun at the police. That's just unfortunate is what that is, but I mean again, the fake gun in the incident was modified to appear real, which is illegal and extremly stupid.
>>
Graham Fonnerfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:09:25 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207842 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840
> I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news

Oh really? You convinced me. Some random the future immigrant must know his shit so much better than actual staticians and sociologists.
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:10:38 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840
You're also making the pretty gross assumption that every single incident of 'police brutality' was reported and made it into the national media enough for you to be able to turn up information about it with a google search. For your argument to be credible, I would need evidence that you have investigated and run statistical analyses on all complaints about police conduct in every jurisdiction in the country. And you didn't, so that angle holds no water.
>>
Rebecca Hammerworth - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:09:34 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207853 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840

>The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem.

Can you say that with a straight face?

>Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

I know the US is really patchy like that, we got places comparable to the Nordics in civility and wealth and also real rundown places where the US state's rule don't really extend. Averaged statistically however the US perform poorly compared to general European countries when it comes to murder, cop brutality and etc. Also poorly on a number of unrelated statistics like child mortality wtf

As a first-world country it's in the low percentile. That's a fact. Not to mention systematic racism which is rampant in the backwaters and some city centers.


>Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.
>the victim was asking for it.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Nell Shakewater - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:06:38 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207828
people percieve things by a ceaseless narrative that denies other ceasless narratives.

They take advantage of subjects in public, that look different, seem different, or feel alienated.

Some people have enough public will power, to be confident and never taken advantage of.

Others do not, and when asked rhetorical "deductive" devices, that assume guilt. Human beings often find themselves asking why, especially when they typically get that as a predictive pattern.

It's done because cops often rotate based on the worst ideas of lowest common denominator suggestions that are often complaint based.

Imagine working. Now imagine you keep getting intrepreted a certain way. Then people talk, you are now having to look out and live by a certain reaction that is public. When you become at peace in a heidegarian sense with the idea of your own death, and you are in a place of minimal consequence you can break that treatment after many occasions.

Eventually the number of occasions outweighs the tendency of that public push.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Psychoanalysis by Phyllis Goodman - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:41:04 EST ID:cpwKmCz1 No.207810 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488339664504.jpg -(79804B / 77.93KB, 843x917) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79804
So I first learned of Lacan and the enduring legacy of that wacky cokester Freud from my well-read friend who is incidentally also a Stalinist, since fringe opinions come in clusters. Now I'm reading more Lacan and Freud, and some Deleuze & Guattari, for a grad seminar on critical theory (so it's from a literary/cultural standpoint rather than a clinical interest). This is the kind of spooky shit I like to study, esoteric and abstract and more about asking questions than getting answers. Who's got opinions? Anyone been analyzed?
>>
Nell Sabblefitch - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:25:47 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207812 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>top left
>repress death drive

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

Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, Blokhin led a company of executioners that performed and supervised numerous mass executions during Stalin's reign, mostly during the Great Purge and World War II.[2] He is recorded as having executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including his killing of about 7,000 Polish prisoners of war during the Katyn massacre in spring 1940,[2][3] making him the most prolific official executioner and mass murderer in recorded world history.[2][4] Forced into retirement following the death of Stalin, Blokhin died in 1955, officially reported as a suicide.

I don't know anything about Lacan, though Zizek talks about him a lot. I've only read a bit of Frued and some Jung. What's Lacan's deal? I remember Hegel is relevant somehow.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:15:07 EST ID:cpwKmCz1 No.207813 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207812
>taking abstruse theoretical concept at face-value
>as though a drive has anything to do with anyone else's gratification but the subject's
>entirely ignoring historical and material conditions, to include the imperative to rapidly industrialize an agrarian backwater, in the interregnum between a civil war where most major global powers intervened on the side of the ousted regime, and an imminent fascist invasion

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lacan/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lacweb/

Advocating for a return to what he claimed to be Freud's most fundamental discoveries about the unconscious, Lacan was about two major things, in the readings I've done: desire is predicated on lack, and the unconscious is structured like a language. Rather than Freud's ego/superego/id distinction, Lacan drew the major distinctions as between an Imaginary order (found in the mirror: imagery, falseness, narcissism and self-concept), the Symbolic Order (where language facilitates the ascendancy of Law and Structure), and the Real (not reality, but beyond language and unassailable by analysis, and hence unattainable). The desire–lack thing is where Hegel comes in handy, and I'm woefully behind on my Hegel, but it seems to be about a complex of recognition and a displacement of desirability involving an inscrutable Other: you desire to be desired by the Other, who is very much like Freud's mother figure.

Lacan's also got a pretty nifty tripartite distinction of mental illness, distinguished by reactions to the Symbolic castration (cf. Freud's phallic stuff): the resentful neurotic, the Law-fixated pervert, and the paranoid psychotic. I was told that as soon as you start learning about these categories, you annoyingly start diagnosing yours and everyone else's behaviors in their terms. And just wait til you get to the pseudo-algebra, now there's where you can really blow your systematizing and totalizing load. Jouissance!
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:27:19 EST ID:3OceFGwp No.207824 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I am extremely suspicious of Lacan. In short, I do not believe that behind the curtain there is anything of theoretical value. Positivist dullards like Alan Sokal have said this about almost every postwar French thinker, but let me try to make the case that unlike Jean Baudrillard or Gilles Deleuze, who were entirely capable of lucid prose and whose occasional difficulty is a stylistic choice, Lacan's density is an intellectual smokescreen, expressly designed to disguise his fraudulence.
Watch this video of him reading Proust, or for that matter any of his public lecturing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mImbHxmMmdE

What's impossible to miss is how affected and grandiloquent his speaking manner is. I've attended my share of lectures given by professors with a taste for theatricality, but Lacan's affective display extends to almost every dimension of his public personality, down to his outrageously foppish cravates and silk shirts. That he possessed an electrifying manner is not just my opinion, as Elisabeth Roudinesco was inspired to argent revelry in describing him as "[a] sorcerer without magic, a guru without hypnosis, a prophet without god." Even more significantly she noted that "students had the impression that the master was speaking... in a coded message secretly addressed to them alone."

The fact of his virtuosic charisma leads me to believe that Lagan was a malignant narcissist, whose entire intellectual career was a sophisticated strategy to win him praise and adulation. Consider: Nietszche's prose is soaring and possessed of a brilliant wit, while Nietzsche the man was entirely ineffectual and forgettable. This is the way you'd expect it to be; the artist is dwarfed in stature by his work. Lacan is just the opposite. In person he was magnetic, while his writing is unbelievably turgid, almost unreadable. Why is that? When you realize the essential fraudulence of Lacan's personality and oeuvre, it becomes obvious. His writing was intentionally obscurantist so as to allow him to keep the con going. In another time and place he may have ended up a cult leader, but it so happens he became a French psychoanalyst instead.

In fact, the army of discip…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Hamilton Desslespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:05:33 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207847 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207824
I always felt like I was being too pretentious for not liking Lacan simply because of how overblown and pretentious *he* is. I always kinda assumed that there just was something 'behind the curtain' that I just hadn't read or wasn't getting. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:35:02 EST ID:3OceFGwp No.207848 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207847
Lacan thrived, even depended, on that uncertainty. When the charismatic narcissist begins speaking he wins over some in an instant, while a few see through him just as quickly. The larger fraction of the audience, though, remains uncommitted, and it is by vigorous exercise of charisma that he convinces them to suspend their disbelief -- "perhaps I just don't understand it, perhaps I'm a philistine; perhaps he really does have it figured out."


The Decline of The West by Edward Ducklecocke - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:21:07 EST ID:fk7xMmwU No.207331 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1480432867070.jpg -(37129B / 36.26KB, 263x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37129
I'm in the process of reading pic related and I've been interested in the idea that the West is in terminal decline and will soon collapse for a while now and I'm fairly convinced that The West is basically done. What do you guys think?
47 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:54:38 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207826 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207817
Well, you just agreed with me that rights are in fact a social construct that we've spelled out, so you're right, this will go nowhere because we're in complete agreement.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:55:50 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207817
There's something you said that's an entire enigma to me, though.
>philosophical absolutes
What the hell is that?
>>
Eugene Goodham - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:54:26 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207832 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207826
I said it was a social construct that is based on philosophical absolutes, which is why its content isn't arbitrary. But please, go ahead and use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions.

Philosophical absolutes are a priori principles. They are absolute because they are not contingent on other phenomena like a posteriori principles. This is a very subtle and abstruse concept which I'm sure you will try to misunderstand, but what I am suggesting is that fundamental conceptions of rights, like 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' emerge from a priori facts about what it means to be a sapient, subjective consciousness. Life is important because we are organisms, liberty is important because we have self-awareness over our own conditions, the freedom to pursue happiness is important because our internal subjectivity produces vast diversity that no one definition of happiness can fit.

My point being that a sapient beings rights aren't random, or arbitrary, or generated purely by consensus. They may be protected or agreed upon by a group reaching consensus, but they emerge from the properties of sapient beings a priori and are merely recognized after the fact a posteriori, in the same way that a group of scientists may have to get together and reach a consensus to publish a paper that declares a new scientific law, but the law already existed as an inherent aspect of reality and was merely waiting to be discovered.

To provide a counter-example to show why rights aren't purely consensus based, imagine a society that by consensus determines everyone has the right to throw people in the volcano. For a long time this might continue, simply because everyone believes that it is so, but eventually there would be someone who would refuse. After a long enough time, someone might refuse loudly enough that someone else heard them before they got chucked in, and people reflecting on their refusal would cause discussion of the event to spread. People would eventually begin to question why the consensus was reach…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:47:52 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207832
I'd love to educate you more on this subject, but I don't converse with mother fuckers who are so rude as to randomly insult the person they're conversing with. I'm just going to leave you with the proof that I'm correct. I enjoyed our talks until you ruined it. Goodbye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(philosophy)
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:27:02 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207846 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207841
>>use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions

Well at least I called it ahead of time. As usual, you make inflammatory claims but aren't willing to hang in for the inevitable consequences, and act like you won by harping about definitions.

That the crappy editors at wikipedia equate rights with norms is utterly misleading, and if you actually follow the reference for their use of it you will see that the person copying the textbook made the same error you made regarding the difference between the a priori origins or rights and the fact that we must agree on recognition of them, in understanding the line in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

If a norm is a prescriptive statement about the world of the format 'things ought to be this way,' then either all norms are culturally relative (there are no universal 'ought to's) or some norms arrive from universal ethical principles and some arise from culturally contingent ethical principles. The social structure which enforces the recognition of a right is necessarily a norm, because each culture would enforce rights differently. But precisely what I am saying is that the 'universal, inalienable' rights are not norms, because they are not an 'ought to' we have to enforce but an 'is' that is intrinsic to reality, which is the opposite of what a norm is. Alternatively, one would have to argue that all morality is relative, in which case once again a morality that includes universal, rather than normative conceptions of rights is equally as valid as one that doesn't.

So if you want to actually engage in discussion, defend your links. You told me that I was actually saying the opposite of what I was saying and demanded to know 'what the hell' I was talking about, but apparently me prophetically saying you would be too 'butt hurt' to actually respond was so offensive that you don't want to respond or defend your statements. Imagine that. Once again 54P, I would suggest if you're going to make strong statements, at least have the…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


If the Bible is the word of God by Nigel Gerryshit - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:43:35 EST ID:oxJMfop8 No.201897 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438037015710.jpg -(240556B / 234.92KB, 489x725) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 240556
why the fuck doesn't it have anything in it like

  1. Genetics and how all that shit works

2. The laws of physics

3. How to build an environmentally friendly engine

4. How to cure cancer

5. How to prevent the bubonic plague?

I'm serious.

Why didn't God just include all that stuff?
69 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:20:59 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207829 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207822
I'd agree with you if Jesus wasn't also in the Quran.
That being said, the Quran was written 400 years after the Bible, so, technically Jesus could be made-up.
But I think in reality Jesus is like Beowulf. He was just some dude, and one day legends about him spread, and then they become larger than life by all means, to the point where all the stories surrounding him might as well be fake.
>>
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:13:47 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207830 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207823
The assumption lies with those that treat the Bible apart from all other myths of its day. Richard Carrier will eventuall cause a snowball effect which will pull away the shroud of obvious biases to allow people to finally understand the obviousness of it all.

Jesus being in the Quran just means that one work of lit took from another wlrk of lit to give itself more merits.

It could be that Jesus was just some dude that snowballed into what it is today but there is good evidence otherwise.
>>
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:24:03 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207829
I recommend looking up Richard Carriers lectures. The Jesus myth people donated him to see if there is any merit to the idea. Think of it as the zeitgeist film but researched by a legitimate ancient historian phd. He changed his mind and realized that there is merit to the ideas. An example, cult of Romulus even had a passion play and its dated older than christianity.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:36:14 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207839 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207831
Whether Jesus was real or not doesn't matter. I know the stories surrounding Jesus are mostly if not totally false, so, who cares? Teaching lessons via myth is just a normal part of history.
>>
Nigel Sondlespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:25:02 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207844 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207839
It matters when the alternative is believed as historical fact. Christianity rests on the idea that this all happened in reality to give itself credibility. It matters in the social and political and even psychological sense. It also matters in a scholarly sense. It hampers scholarship to give credence to a thing that does not deserve any and only given throughg enerations of assumptions which carries over from its inception thousands of years ago.

Some atheists argue believers are in some ways victimized by these beliefs that has a strong hold over our government policy making and ways in which societys behaves. I think there is a very good argument to be made that if they are victims then it would ethical to offer help.


We have to talk about louie ck by Beatrice Cloffingman - Mon, 26 Dec 2016 00:52:00 EST ID:ZQywfuGk No.207508 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1482731520273.jpg -(18093B / 17.67KB, 640x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 18093
Now louie is alright but there is something that he said which got me thinking like a dog stuck in the dog door. You see that guy was on a interview and he comes up with this way of looking where "a little white girl doesn't get to complain". He continues on about how when his kid was sick and he got her flavored medicine which she didn't want. "what do you mean no? People are starving to death and you say no!? You don't get to!"

And it hit me, okay she is not starving and that's better than the alternative but in a way, she resembles what society has sacrificed inorder to not starve. That little girl sick but she still thinking about petty shit like the flavor of her medicine, she forever in this headspace where things like that matter. The sacrifice is a clear mind replaced by that of something like a consumer.
31 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Graham Baddlebury - Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:35:02 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207757 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1487716502986.gif -(2021114B / 1.93MB, 185x171) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207756
>You're a bit emotional for /pss/, but then again pretty much everyone here who's not me is too emotional.

Reread your post, and you'll figure out the joke yourself mate.
>>
Cyril Wallerworth - Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:23:58 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207756
Everyone who comes to this board are emotional children who like to get their jollies from trying to sound smarter than other people they don't know on the internet. And there are like five of us, and we're all garbage people. Don't try to deny it.
>>
Ernest Pablingway - Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:50:09 EST ID:YONArVoZ No.207759 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207758
This, I just came here by accident and you're all the worst.
>>
Fucking Brocklewick - Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:57:11 EST ID:5T+lpeRC No.207760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207753
>lol I'm smarter than you
>but I"m not stuck up look at this ironic blingee anime gif I'm chill
>I'M SMART FUCK OFF
>>
Cedric Drebberwan - Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:42:25 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207777 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1487860945964.png -(49043B / 47.89KB, 642x1424) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207758


Stimulant psychosis by Thomas Buzzville - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 02:46:38 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207672 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1486021598585.jpg -(1003863B / 980.33KB, 2448x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1003863
Realization of the Individual

An Informal and Incomplete Attempt at Documenting Ramblings of Stimulant Psychosis, as a Less Fucked-Up Freud Would Attempt With Only Anecdotal Evidence and Subjective Observations

Extinguishing Sex in
Delapidated Gender Politics and

A letter to an old and new friend,

Would it be personally irksome to suggest that by rekindling a frienship with the "you" that always existed in my mind, represented through your thoughts and actions, and now modified, complemented, and made whole, in all practical pretenses of recognition, a gendered-persona in my mind, lets me realize the ultimate muteness and insignificance of how I (and certainly others) change behavioral patterns (voluntarily or involuntarily, passively or actively) when attempting to communicate with the opposite gender, as if that particular gendered individual is inherently predisposed to respond a different way, and additionally the idea of the value of posturing oneself through vanity or display of ostensibly desirable attributes; leading to the realization that it is a fools game to live vicariously through an edited version of yourself (unless of course you desire a beneficial outcome for yourself, in some form of perverse psychological-token reward manufactured by yourself for your actualization and relization of your true self being, as a result of biological urges programmed by the primordial hind-mind, nothing more than a biological machine, (with gluttonous desire to consume everything and base ability to interact in a perverse incentivized-token society of dark portents and dubious destination), whose soul purpose is to pursue the evolutional pipe-dream of maximal distribution of your genes as an ego-driven mandate of your existence.) So I posit the question to myself and everone: Why let your ability of limitless self-expression succumb to the whimsy of the biological urge to procreate?

The idea of the "transgender" individual is uncomfortable for a large portion of humanity, across sexual orientations even, and this uncomfortability is due to an unwillingness of the ordinary individual to confront their own firstly amorphous and effectively raw Identity as they can illustrate outwardly for others or inward for themselves in any honest confidence without fibbing and cutting corners in important internal dialogues. Even individuals with singular missions through career or personal obligation of manifesting an idea in physical reality through some non-monetary motivation, struggle with the perception of themselves after completion, as their own understanding of their identity even during their 'mission' was not guided by some inherent imperative intrinsic in identity, but rather by a belief maintained by the constructs, irrespective of any moral grounding, that restricted the ability to self-actualize through a mode of self-expression which did not include the creation of art (this working definition of art being the representation of an idea, one's own or collectively amalgamized with others', through a medium unsullied by the self's neccesity to maintain a contrived character in order to survive.

I only preface this realization of mine with the fear of its possible irksomeness to you because its framing implicitly recognizes your transition, which is effectively a masked question of your actual existence, as it questions every others'... However, this only means that you have largely come to terms with the time, space, and reality you inhabit, and from my point of view, have gone further in the never-ending journey in self-actualization toward the ideal of Nietzsche's Ubermensch (as i interpret)
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Martha, OP - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:53:42 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207683 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207678
Additionally, do you think that [the] prose can have a place in the presentation of the raw idea for discussion?

Would you say there is validity in the notion of the ordinary individual feeling uncomfortable with the transgender phenomena due to some cognitive dissonance, the dissonant truths being the public persona and the internal self? And the behavioral reaction being avoidance, prejudice, and possible violence? Or on the flip side, a total and complete acceptance of the transgender phenomenon through the self-actualization of identity unbound by any gender, but wielding gender as a tool for self-expression. (and this is by no means implying it is a "choice" in self-actualization of gender, on the contrary, it is a deeply held conviction of one's Identity, an imperative to be expressed much like a gene.

NB
>>
Oliver Harringpore - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:44:36 EST ID:hKRevDFH No.207685 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think you have conflicting ideas here, if my interpretation is correct.

You make the claim that people attach too much to their biological gender, and that discarding our biological urges is our path to the true self.

And then you place emphasis on transgendered individuals who place almost all of their attachment to their idea of what their biological gender should be. It seems out of place.

So is sexual identity important or not?

Or are you calling sexual identity one means of self actualization where the expression of the individuals 'art,' where art is any external expression of the self, is another means of self actualization?
>>
Op - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:16:30 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207685

Not saying that individuals attach too much to their biological gender, or thattransgendered individuals place too much value in ehat their biological gender should be, but that the aforementioned is not a part of true identity, but its appendage, "persona"

My idea of identity is neutered. What is presented for external observation is persona, which is what is sexualized.
>>
Op - Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:25:23 EST ID:PNxBjttw No.207687 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207685
Sexual orientation and Gender is a mechanism of self-expression for the true identity, through the apparatus of persona. It does not neccesarily imply the identity to be one thing or another inherently, but that the persona is neccessitated to engage and immerse itself in the terms of gender and sexuality.
>>
Matilda Doshman - Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:49:04 EST ID:AY3IYDOV No.207688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207672
"I wont say that I'm proud of you because I feel what follows the emotion of pride is the ideation of some degree of my participation in your 'good' or 'achievement', which further implicates an idea of ownership of some portion of your being,"

I really like that. Pretty sound logic to me through and through, but let me double check i'm getting your message.

You write, "the idea of the value of posturing oneself through vanity or display of ostensibly desirable attributes; leading to the realization that it is a fools game to live vicariously through an edited version of yourself (unless of course you desire a beneficial outcome for yourself, in some form of perverse psychological-token reward manufactured by yourself for your actualization and relization of your true self being, as a result of biological urges programmed by the primordial hind-mind, nothing more than a biological machine, (with gluttonous desire to consume everything and base ability to interact in a perverse incentivized-token society of dark portents and dubious destination), whose soul purpose is to pursue the evolutional pipe-dream of maximal distribution of your genes as an ego-driven mandate of your existence.) So I posit the question to myself and everone: Why let your ability of limitless self-expression succumb to the whimsy of the biological urge to procreate?"

You mean to say that because of our animal origins, the egoic/lesser mind creates a "normal" or "likeable" facade to attract mates while also adorning qualities that further ensure survival based off environment, and upon discovering their facade,the person realizes their true self, which i gathered from your loose definition to be some amorphous creative force, thereby rendering the awakened individuals identity as both limitless and illusory.

Pretty sure that's what you meant. Either way good read, I really enjoy hifalutin prose. Your style really does reflect the honeymoon phase of amphetamines for me..definitely seemed stimmmmmed


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.