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


Time lapse videos inspiring a thought by Angus Dillerlock - Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:33:27 EST ID:oLGqCMnU No.201433 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1434926007824.jpg -(234419 B, 600x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 234419
Is our perception of the passing of time somewhere along a spectrum? The passing of time as relative, rather than we humans standing at a privileged point of view where we see time pass as it 'truly' does.
>>
Eugene Blackcocke - Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:48:26 EST ID:HJ3NusPs No.201436 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1434944906257.jpg -(937583 B, 1200x1004) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 937583
It all depends on how closely we're watching the clock.


nature vs human by James Greenbanks - Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:32:12 EST ID:tEXk8o6H No.201429 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1434904332192.png -(301336 B, 994x608) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 301336
is it fair to say that in the Middle Ages metaphysical, epistemological and the like questions of nature and god were more important and more discussed than the questions of the field of ethics?
it seems like that is the case from the beginning of philosophy in ancient Greece. from then on it was more about looking at the world first and only after that moving on onto morals (with the exception of sophists perhaps).
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:04:06 EST ID:2fcbIenj No.201431 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201429
Yes. The church based their thinking off the Aristotelian school of thought. They made the closest thing possible to an idol out of him despite the fact that he was pagan.
The Muslemen based their thoughts off various South East Asian scholars and advanced through their teachings. Primarily Kanada and his various thoughts pertaining to the Aether and Alchemy. I wish they would've acknowledged his works on the "atom", though. We might've advanced much quicker if the Muslims brought those ideas with them. But we might've also advanced further if a lot of things. Tangent. /rantoff. /endthenigga


MRA by Phineas Feggleford - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:42:21 EST ID:3HTzcoU8 No.201402 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1434739341396.jpg -(3482 B, 96x68) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3482
Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to pretend to be some kind of an MRA.

Men face double standards in Western society which hurts them and causes social problems for both men and women. If we examine reality closely we can see that while women face sex discrimination, men do as well. This disproportionately affects some men more than others; for example, poor and minority men.

It would be better if men and women were treated more equally.
>>
Fuck Duvingwodging - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:30:59 EST ID:Ah43RqcL No.201407 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I wouldn't wanna say everybody hates everybody but to an extent in the individualized western society it's true. People in general are trying to grind each others' gears in order to make themselves feel better. People in general are trying to find some bullshit to pull out in order to forget about their own shit.

More than anything this happens within people that you mentioned about - poor and hopeless.
>>
Barnaby Sussleman - Sat, 20 Jun 2015 03:46:07 EST ID:JwG+Lb/R No.201421 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Governments/nations, like the ones that exist today, have always existed tacitly to protect its members from danger. They are of course an extension or larger version of the notion of a family or tribe - loyal members receive the protection of the group, on the condition that you yourself don't hurt the group and are willing to protect it.

This has consequences however.
If there is no danger about, governments/nations lose integrity as their reason for being is diminished. It is hard to justify carrying a heavy shield if nobody wishes to strike at you.

So, strangely, the thing whose role is to defend against danger now has an incentive to put you in danger, or at least make you think you're in danger, thus justifying its protection. The signs of this activity abound if you throw a cursory glance at history. Nations always trying to convince its members of the enemy, out there, trying to get them.


ITT: Justify your bigotry by Basil Trotway - Sat, 23 May 2015 08:04:32 EST ID:iJjtvRni No.200899 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1432382672611.jpg -(56220 B, 399x305) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56220
>Homosex is wrong because it makes me feel ICKY inside
>Interracial sex is wrong because no self respecting white woman can possibly be interested in sex with a nigger, they can only be raped. Note: this doesn't make me feel icky, but rather impotent rage because I'm insecure of my penis size
>Pedophilia is wrong because it makes me feel ICKY inside and no one under 18 years of age can possibly be interested in sex, they can only be raped
>Transexual sex is wrong because it makes me feel ICKY inside
>Beastiality is wrong because it makes me feel ICKY inside and animals cannot consent to sex. Also when we forcibly breed them it's okay because we can tell when they are in heat

Whew, that was some mental gymnastics, but I think I justified all my bigotry. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it?
94 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Phineas Feggleford - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:33:28 EST ID:3HTzcoU8 No.201404 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201388

>to implement an argument via ad hominem i'd have to attack the character of the op. which i didn't.

Yeah, you did.

>his reasoning also isn't right, it's wrong.

That's irrelevant to his putative status as a hard-right guy.
>>
Phineas Feggleford - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:34:06 EST ID:3HTzcoU8 No.201405 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201403

>Maybe ad hominem isn't the proper term, but you are without a doubt attacking OP's character rather than his arguments.

Ad hominem is EXACTLY the proper term for that.
>>
Phineas Feggleford - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:47:04 EST ID:3HTzcoU8 No.201406 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201405

Also attacking the person's character in a debate inherently implies they're wrong because of that character.

It's not separate, the attack on character from a dismissal of the argument, ergo it's an ad hominem fallacy.
>>
Isabella Suvinglon - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:54:23 EST ID:j0uoDf21 No.201408 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201405
I thought that maybe because >>201374 was suggesting that OP had ulterior motives (ie that OP is trolling) and was not explicitly a sleight against OP, that post alone could not be considered an ad hominem. Is there some latin term that describes the case where you accuse your debate opponent of actually holding different beliefs than what they claim to hold?

Of course in other posts he does claim that OP holds evil beliefs so this whole tangent is purely for my own edification.
>>
Froot Nugger - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:17:33 EST ID:FjmjIIFt No.201410 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>200899
>toy play is rape because dildos can't give consent


NYCs by Samuel Bisslestock - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:13:57 EST ID:u4vL+86R No.201387 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1434716037586.png -(19812 B, 516x370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 19812
Why do people lump newly industrialized nations with third world countries? They are certainly not the same, but NYCs aren't first world either, they are intermediates between first and third world, should we not create a second world category for them?
I know second world used to mean communist nations, but now that the "world" factors means economy, it should be obvious NYCs are second world.
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:21:43 EST ID:x+hUDcLA No.201393 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201391
Fucking luv Costa Rica, m8.

Land of Toucan Sam and giant perfect spheres made of rock.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:06:53 EST ID:E1/I0XAG No.201399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201389
It has been altered since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It has a few modern implications now. I would prefer 5-7 degrees of industrial status but it still holds meaning today.

>>201391
Nigga. Did you just call Costa Rica a third world country?!?! God Fucking Damn It.
The are the gem in the Central American cartel-run hellhole that hasn't been touched by American war mongering or drug smuggling violence (as much as it can). If it was for the heat, I'd rather live in their worst neighbourhoods than in the American worse neighbourhoods.

Not only has it improved agricultural yield (removing the need for any sort of shitty "free trade" logos on any of their produce), they have an incredibly low poverty rate and unemployment rate while simultaneously maintaining a government surplus year after year.
This is without mention to the fact that they've achieved the first ever "certified fresh tomato" rating in terms of environmental sustainability.
Seriously. We look to Costa Rica for tips on how to be green.
Truly a country that lives up to its name.
>>
Phineas Feggleford - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:08:56 EST ID:3HTzcoU8 No.201400 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201393

I went to Costa Rica on a community college class trip.

I should have never come back to the USA. I should have found some way to just stay there.

Because my life turned to shit after I got back and then I realized that this whole "American Dream" thing is crap.

I should've stayed in CR.
>>
Phineas Feggleford - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:10:55 EST ID:3HTzcoU8 No.201401 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201399

Man, I've been to Costa Rica.

It's a great country but it's not up to first world standards in terms of living standards. Things are fairly expensive there, especially compared to other Latin American countries. Wages are not that high. There are a fair amount of people living in the street (but they don't seem to be dying of starvation at least).

It's way ahead of India but it's not like, Japan. That's what I'm saying.
>>
Augustus Gedgechutch - Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:23:05 EST ID:2u24PTJt No.201409 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201391
NYC = Newly Yndustrialized Country.


>but now that the "world" factors means economy, it should be obvious NYCs are second world.

I don't think so, because of what >>201389 says. 1st/2nd/3rd world are anachronisms. Policy makers don't use the terms anymore, so why should we? Let's just let it die. It's a very divisive concept to begin with.

Although I think 'developing nations' and 'developed nations' still aren't that well-defined.


ur a piece of plastic by Thomas Clibblefoot - Thu, 04 Jun 2015 01:47:37 EST ID:+kNrv3gT No.201159 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1433396857629.jpg -(678213 B, 1440x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 678213
human nature has not changed. people have become smarter and more educated but they have not become more intelligent: they have not become more capable of making decisions for themselves. we are always subject to the influence of other people and the bias our culture entwines us with. all of this thing you call culture is just a temporary display of what the collective desires at the time. attitudes, taste, opinions are all going to shift over time because culture is a temporary phenomenon. so if you want to be intelligent then i say the first thing to do is look at all the ways you are influenced. none of what i've said can be treated as bias or influence (hmm) because i have not claimed culture to be a good or bad thing as it is. furthermore my ability to convey this to you should not be limited by the current cultural climate, and especially it's own forgetfulness and ability to process ideas. you might feel different about what i say tomorrow or the next day. but it's strange because we live in a culture that is so dependent on it's own ideological stagnation that we say we are doing things the way the are not out of preference but because that is the best way of doing things. so the question is when do we stop doing things to make them culturally sectioned "better," and start doing things really because that's just the way we like it. it's like the art vs science dilemma, but our science has become our art. our ignorance of our subjectivity to culture is what makes our culture the way it is.

that said i think things suck and we are all lonely of any real humanity.
13 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Molly Cuvingville - Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:42:38 EST ID:QxPnbnzp No.201336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201334
it's a metaphor for a gratification of benefiting young minds without them realizing it

wow that sounded rapey too

I should stop
>>
Phyllis Pembleledging - Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:21:07 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.201337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201314
What field's though?
Not to turn this into a "problems with education" thread, but I was teaching a science lab, biology.
In my experience with my peers and with students, I'd say your assessment is pretty spot on. You are absolutely right that memorization is necessary, but to a certain degree, IMO. For the most part, there are some fundamental concepts that you need to know. Then there are more mundane details that are unnecessary that can simply be quickly researched if the need be. Like for instance, I don't think one needs to memorize every single enzyme and product in the metabolism of sugar to understand biochemistry (which is part of how I was taught it). So there is a fine line between excessive memorization and simply not providing enough information to serve as a basis.

My main point though is that it is possible to provide examples of how to think correctly. I tried to hone in on this with some of our labs, which is a basic freshmen level bio. Tried to get them thinking beyond the lab, what data/results represents, why things are studied, how to design experiments, shit like that. Some kids get it though, some don't, some can reach a high potential and some can't. That's pretty straight forward.

>education limits the ability for one to think for one's self
But this I don't agree with.
>>
Phyllis Pembleledging - Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:22:38 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.201338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201315
That's such an awesome idea man. Kudos to you
nb for double post
>>
Molly Cuvingville - Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:27:42 EST ID:QxPnbnzp No.201339 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201337
>But this I don't agree with.
>education limits the ability for one to think for one's self

The material can be wrong, nobody questions it.

School should enable one to think for oneself, I dont think it is because of the majority of people just say "the teacher said it. A scientist said it (without an actual objective research article backing it) etc etc and people gobble it up

I've been in college classes that are literally a self help infomercial where you have to buy the teacher's books, CD's and fuckig syllabus to pass the class and kids eat it up like nothing
>>
Samuel Crittingbure - Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:35:25 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.201347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201159

Evolution happens at more levels than just the individual human.


Pornography and art by Lillian Brubberchidging - Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:30:22 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.201329 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1434303022477.jpg -(341204 B, 1023x681) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 341204
Is pornography art?
Or is art pornography?
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:38:09 EST ID:lJKwg7RK No.201330 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201329
Authorial Intent.
>>
Lillian Brubberchidging - Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:42:24 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.201331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201330
The statement that all pornography is ultimately art is far out, isn't it?
The upside-down statement that all art is basically pornography is reductionist, isn't it?
>>
Lillian Brubberchidging - Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:52:11 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.201332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201330
So depiction of genital intercourse can serve as educational purpose as erotic purpose, dependant on authoral intent, isn't it? It makes sense.
Is there such thing as audience intent?
>>
Nigel Gimmermed - Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:27:00 EST ID:sA8je+7u No.201333 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201332
>Is there such thing as audience intent?
Yeah, that's becoming the big thing these days.
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:02:15 EST ID:lJKwg7RK No.201335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201332
One thing you do when you analyse a story is remove it of many of the influences surrounding it. This is why they teach you "lenses" in high school so that you can view it from different reductionist angles like how you look at everything in life.

One of the exterior factors to remove is Authorial Intent, which has its time and place. Most stories should be read (especially non-fiction books) with no attention to Authorial Intent and what the author meant. (ie. it doesn't matter that JK Bowling said Dumbledore is gay. You can bring your own meaning into the series - but not into the universe).
In porn to figure out what is porn and what is erotic art is the concept of Authorial Intent. You can draw artistic influences in every work (camera style, lighting, etc) but there's no doubt that porn for porn's sake is simply porn and does not have art.

You can de-construct porn and view it from the lens of a film-maker and call it "artistically x". But. It's. Not. Fucking. Art.

>>201333
Lol.
Especially in the creation of concept universes.


Was the sexual revolution a mistake? by Wesley Grandfoot - Fri, 22 May 2015 13:05:24 EST ID:xOB25D9i No.200877 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1432314324997.jpg -(20147 B, 230x346) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20147
DICKS EVERYWHERE
31 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Fucking Sinkinbury - Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:47:07 EST ID:QxPnbnzp No.201271 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201230
Nobody is debating utopia. I never claimed to define it, I just was making a point of those three things and how the experiment labled it uptopia. Seeking for a deeper meaning is a red herring. And you're behaving like a the futurener going about it. Grow the fuck up already.
Even moreso
>you say we arent in uptopia
"yes but we have X Y Z"
>XYZ DOESNT MAKE IT UTOPIA
"so that means its still applicable to today? neat"

>Point invalid, you still don't know what utopia is.
Damn you're 14.
I was establishing universal happiness was not contingent on a "realistic" utopia
Id ask to read between the lines but your head is so far up your ass I have to directly spell out things that are directly spelled out.
>What you cited supports the notion
Most of them are old people that die of other complications. Things that are secondary to the flu. People these days, despite the elderly, do not fear the flue for death. It is not an everyday worry. Again, think, use your noggin, read between the lines.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fucking Sinkinbury - Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:49:20 EST ID:QxPnbnzp No.201272 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201271
also thinking the main objective of an experiment cannot be used for other purposes
close minded at its finest, think outside the box and by that I mean, well just think.
>>
Fucking Sinkinbury - Mon, 08 Jun 2015 03:54:14 EST ID:QxPnbnzp No.201273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201231
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103172900789
>study was done for a few hours
no
>>
Albert Cluttingwutch - Mon, 08 Jun 2015 22:25:33 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.201275 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201230
>overpopulation
overpopulation is a really great point.

To those saying we are so different from mice, ask yourself this. We know overpopulation is a problem, mice may not and it may have been your downfall. Yet currently our population is expanding and I don't see any signs of it slowing down. So how to knowledge of something really equate to any real difference if such knowledge isn't acted upon? Think hard, what have we really done? And what is earth's carrying capacity for us, especially with our increased carbon footprints and waste outputs due to increases in technology and the like?

Also from my own experience working with mouse models in a lab setting, mice really are damn similar to us in so many ways. These similarities are subtle. They can recognize and remember symbols, so to those who say they don't understand language, that's not entirely true. We used to to Y-maze tests with them that used symbols and they remember them quite well.

Likewise a lot of our societal responces predominate logic and reason. Edward Bernays and his marketing psychology school of thought uses this as a primary driver for social change. So one might say that as a society we have the ability to plan and such, but only a few rationally thinking minds cannot overcome a boatload of emotionally driven ones. This happens all the time. Even your own mind is hard to quiet when its emotional, and the problem is exasperated once many emotional minds are interacting.
So when I say emotional here you can equate this to base, more simplistic and less rational thinking, that of a lower vertebrate or the like. We have all the same thought processes plus a few extra, higher order ones, but the lower ones typically win out when the shit hits the fan.
>>
Shitting Muffingwill - Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:41:00 EST ID:QxPnbnzp No.201284 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201275
The argument was never over population, but comparing the behavior patterns of the mice before extinction to our human patterns today, where some argue were on the brink of the end.

Of course if you nitpick and cherrypick things you can obviously infer humans =! mice, but this is in regard to human sexuality, mammalian sexuality


Agnosticism vs Atheism by Archie Chuvinggold - Wed, 13 May 2015 15:02:21 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.200662 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1431543741397.jpg -(311424 B, 719x1111) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 311424
Hey guys, I'm gonna start kicking a dead horse again with this topic but I just wanted to bring it up because I still see this shit confusing everybody that uses these words. I want to hear what you guys think of the words Agnostic and Atheist. I only bring it up because I'm so tired of watching Neil Degrasse Tyson fans arguing about the words since Neil constantly says, "I'm not an Atheist, I'm an Agnostic." Here's my logic behind the words that I think coherently solves the problem of misusing the words and pretty much adheres completely to what Neil Degrasse was saying in his statement;

The definition of Agnostic is someone who holds no belief about deities, or more specifically, someone who believes the concept of deities is innately illogical and therefore believes it is impossible to support any deity ideas with logic and believes at large that everything requires logical proof to exist or logical disproof to not exist, but it's pretty easy to assume that an agnostic does not believe in the lack of existence of anything because the absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence. This part about deities being illogical by nature is because the word deity has no definition, therefore cannot be applied to logical equations. For example, if you say to someone, 'I walked', they know exactly what you did; you moved by foot at a slow and easy pace. However, say something like, 'I spoke to my God' and when it comes to the noun God, no one will have the same definition in mind. Deities can be found spoken of in many historic texts, and never are the definitions the same, where as you won't find a word like 'walk' being spoken about differently depending on the society.

The definition of the word Atheism means 'believing in no God' or 'not believing in God', which are almost identical ideas but also significantly different. I would say roughly 50% of the people who describe themselves as Atheist believe that the lack of evidence for God means he does not exist, while another 50% of Atheists believe simply that there is no proof of God and therefor he does not positively exist, but also recognize the lack of a…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
86 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
James Pangerdat - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 17:25:37 EST ID:OP67yESA No.201237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201229
tell all the people who invested in social security for years, and didn't get it. Who worked for years soley believing in this future, that this wasn't a scam.

I couldn't and wouldn't.

And that's because nothing that's been apart of our world for this long and this pervasive, as a whole doesn't have any evil qualities.

It's called reality.
>>
Cedric Pickbanks - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 17:54:56 EST ID:DYjBi8Lh No.201240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201236
>demarcation isn't the province of science, all though just like every thing that involves classification it is eventually involved. What isn't apparent to me isn't what science is, it's why it would be apparent for you're demarcation of a social issue to be involved with science in anyway.
It's like I said, I *cannot* hope you'd understand the problem of demarcation; you didn't even have the spare 15 seconds to google what it means before you started elaborating on it out of your ass.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem before you embarass yourself any further

The rest of the post: pretty much "blah blah I want to habeeb because that's what I want to do and I'm hostile to criticism, I can't into paragraphs, structurizing my thoughts and can't tell you're from your and their from there", I guess this is the point when your way of being dumb stops being interesting and starts being obnoxious.


>>201237
>tell all the people who invested in social security for years, and didn't get it. Who worked for years soley believing in this future, that this wasn't a scam.
Two wrongs don't make a right and---
Ah, screw it, the hell am I thinking, pointing out logical flaws in the arguments of someone who calls empirical rationalistm "lies"? Jesus.

>And that's because nothing that's been apart of our world for this long and this pervasive, as a whole doesn't have any evil qualities.
I'd just start counting the logical errors you made in just these two sentences, but then again, I don't think you'd get the point.
>>
Charles Clizzlehall - Sun, 07 Jun 2015 04:36:50 EST ID:gHvCsT5H No.201250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201240
no i wouldn't assume demarcation relates to that because it's broader than that. And as a denial for generalizations of people this isn't doing anything to help that. Which is why you said you wouldn't demarcate it as a battle.

"dumb" "can't into" "habeeb"

i think you mistake replicating text you read for understanding how to arrange text.

It's not gonna all look the same, and it's not gonna all be bad, because you don't like it.


No two wrongs don't make a right, it's more like you're inability to recognize that everything already has wrongs on it's check list.

"two wrongs don't make a right" yes that's classical logic right there. I'm sure you really got going with that one.

Social security doesn't become bad, because it's done this to people. Religion doesn't become bad because it's done this.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Henry Murdshaw - Sun, 07 Jun 2015 05:11:47 EST ID:DYjBi8Lh No.201251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201250
>i think you mistake replicating text you read for understanding how to arrange text.
I have seen the truth and it doesn't make sense.
>no i wouldn't assume demarcation relates to that because it's broader than that. And as a denial for generalizations of people this isn't doing anything to help that. Which is why you said you wouldn't demarcate it as a battle.
I like how you just completely ignore the meaning of the terms used and just continue going on.
>"two wrongs don't make a right" yes that's classical logic right there. I'm sure you really got going with that one.
Classical logic is a class of formal logic. "Two wrongs make a right" is a statement that falls within the broader category of "tu quoque" (itself a form of ad hominem) arguments, which are informal fallacies. Or, in other words, no, that's not classical logic right here.
>Social security doesn't become bad, because it's done this to people. Religion doesn't become bad because it's done this.
Is this even human language?
>This naturally happens to anything that people put their faith in. Faith is broader than religion.
Is paying Social Security faith of the same kind as religious faith? An economist would say that it's a rational investment based on a long-term projection of returns, with the likelihood of someone investing (or wanting to invest; if it is forced) scaling down as risk increases, assuming constant returns. Hasty generalisation, hm.
>"i'll just start counting the logical errors" yes i'm sure you're a great logician, and not just self aggrandizing and projecting anyone religious or non that threatens your uniqueness for stressing their greatness.
I'd be fine if you just stopped talking as if you hit your head or something, but this is fine, too. I'm glad you recognized my greatness, even if you somehow came to believe I think it's threatened (lol).
>>
Charles Clizzlehall - Sun, 07 Jun 2015 15:24:36 EST ID:gHvCsT5H No.201267 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201251
superfluous

i didn't ignore what you wrote. There was nothing there to adress. I did explain that demarcation is about as broad as define, designate, and classify. There is no reason i would have looked that up, because it's not that narrow. You narrowed it down afterwards, but with a bunch of ego shielding to preface it, as to why you shouldn't have had to have said or done any of this.

Yes are you explaining, how you agree with my sarcasm.


holy shit, maybe you just are a young person. "A economist" Social Security first of all was designed as a promise between people outside of the economy, during a time people thought the economy would not recover.

Secondly yes it's the same kind of faith, you fucking moron it's a promise of a future, that's going to help you and heal you.

Specifically the ones you referenced that put faith in prayer and medicine, and saw no return.

Social security was created as a way to motivate people to keep living to pay more now, to help us out of the problem we are in, with a promise that relates to the trust broken by the problem we are in.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


cultural appropriation by Wesley Depperdock - Mon, 25 May 2015 11:48:46 EST ID:AKpvS4to No.200963 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1432568926305.jpg -(193322 B, 480x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 193322
Is there really a serious moral problem with what we call 'cultural appropriation'? There seems to be a strong consensus on this. It's downright wrong and disrespectful.

If somebody wants to wear a bindi for the aesthetic quality and the religious symbolism despite not being born into Hindu culture, how is this morally distinct from doing the same thing being raised a Hindu?
23 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Cedric Pickbanks - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 08:52:29 EST ID:DYjBi8Lh No.201216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201199
wat are american flag bikinis? what are many a computer game that involve events like d-day, where many people lost their friends, and which were forever struck into the respective consciousnesses of the nations that took part in them? what are revolutionary reconstructions in america, where teenagers play the role of big bad redcoats to the detritment of british visage (and in spite of their historical truths)? what are all the sharp-dressing people in the world who copy british gentleman attire?

The problem with cultural apprioriation isn't just the fact of it. It's the rest that makes it a problem or not. The intentions, the intended result, the way the act of appropriation juxtaposes cultures - whether it is to marginalize, to insult, or whether it is simple fashion, or whether it is connected with some kind of expression of ideas, related to the original or not.

I remember reading about a counterculture in Nigeria that dresses as 80s saturday night dancers and/or american bikers. Their behavior is nowhere near what would we expect from their dress - the (grotesquely exaggerated) way of dressing is simply how they express their rejection of THEIR mainstream culture - that is, the one prevalent in Nigeria. By adopting flamboyant attire from a far detached culture. It sure looks like a parody, but is not meant to be one. Only when interpreted together with the context, does the phenomenon start to unravel itself.

Similarly, you cannot just throw random, detached acts of "appropriation" that may or may not have happened and expect people to argue. What is lacking is the context, and the context is decisive in this case.

And last, but not least, being not offended is not a right, for the simple reason that it cannot be, because it would be unenforceable. There are people offended by things like universal health care, or the mere existence of other people.
>>
Cedric Pickbanks - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:02:19 EST ID:DYjBi8Lh No.201217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201216
More examples came to my mind. Swedish raggare - people who live the stereotypical life of a 50s hilbilly mashed with Dukes of Hazzard, cowboy metalheads of Botswana, and Ukukhothana, which looks like freaking Devo. No, I didn't make those up. There are more, way more.
>>
James Honeyman - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 11:48:04 EST ID:8RsU8LXU No.201218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I wouldn't say a 'serious moral problem' as there's nothing literally stopping you from wearing a bindi or, as >>201199 suggests, strutting down a busy Tokyo avenue wearing a kimono despite being non-Japanese. If it looks nice and you want to wear it (along with the deeper cultural meaning), then there are no barriers preventing you from doing such.

Personally, I wouldn't but only because that's not my thing. While I do believe that cultural mixture is necessary, such mixing was not an arbitrary act as "I want to wear this headdress" or "this kimono looks neat." Encounters between different societies and cultures happen over periods of time, trading languages and artifacts in the process. Although history has shown us otherwise (hello Spain), it is like a two-way street in some respects.

As for the Hindu question, although you may understand the bindi's meaning on a literal and historical level, because you weren't born into that discourse (or at least exposed to it as a child), you may not understand it as well as someone who grew up wearing one. That's not always the case, however. Ultimately if a person wants to wear something that's a 'cultural other,' then they'll probably do so.

Will it offend people on both sides? Absolutely. Are you in the wrong for doing so? Probably not, so long as you're not condensing that culture to just one object, one gesture or one phrase.

All of that said, it's probably best not to do so.
>>
Phineas Semmlefuck - Sat, 06 Jun 2015 12:31:38 EST ID:I/fLJiUi No.201219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201199

>Try walking in traditional Japanese clothing while not being Japanese, and you will see how the nationals will react.

YOU WILL FACE DEATH BY 1000 CUTS
>>
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sun, 07 Jun 2015 11:32:18 EST ID:i6Id+/bH No.201260 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201219
>Trying walking as a trans-crip in your old blood turf and you will see how the nationalists will react.


An object is this?! by Caroline Fanfoot - Thu, 21 May 2015 21:27:42 EST ID:j0p57M0O No.200867 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1432258062893.png -(35209 B, 300x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 35209
'Academic philosophy' is the practice of people with little or no interest in -actual- philosophy forming hierarchic communities of various sizes (the members with the best etiquette forming an elitist authority), flashing their vocabulary and debating 'skills' for each other, and collectively hating on people who are more concerned with actual thought, inquiry, formal logic or whatever instead of petty formalities. A person interested in philosophy should avoid universities and "papers" for their own good, and instead find a less formal and less narrow minded approach to philosophy.

I would say "in my humble opinion", but the irony would be thick and smelly. Discuss!
80 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nigger Tootridge - Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:36:21 EST ID:j0p57M0O No.201156 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201129
Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm retarded. Sorry that I cannot give you any [citations] about my retardedness, and that it's just my opinion instead of a glorious rational argument (and as some dude pointed it out, things are just opinions and not arguments if you can't get back to plato while riding the footnotes).

>>201147
>if nothing you've thought or said has been taken up and is being used I don't think you've had a successful philosophical career.
I hope that I will never understand how associating philosophy with career and success like that is even possible.
>>
Jarvis Tillingman - Wed, 03 Jun 2015 23:01:36 EST ID:U1UE6fqu No.201157 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>200914
>mildly agitated
you troll yourself, you failed.
>>
Eliza Grimman - Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:55:20 EST ID:zOfhxauO No.201170 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201156
I meant career as in
>Career is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a person's "course or progress through life (or a distinct portion of life)". In this definition career is understood to relate to a range of aspects of an individual's life, learning and work.

NOT in the way you've taken it:
> A third way in which the term career is used to describe an occupation or a profession that usually involves special training or formal education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Career

i'm not treating philosophy as a way to get rich and famous..... you're just looking for an argument like this.
>>
Fuck Gendlelack - Thu, 04 Jun 2015 21:36:52 EST ID:gHvCsT5H No.201179 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201153
that is important, it can't just mean kicking the ass of academia, even though that mountain seemed important too the goals of many philosophers.

Can you be a philosopher without dominating the field of philosophy, or succesfully tackling the other areas of the philosophical web and the ideas of other philosophers, that make up the context of philosophy as a whole.

Can you be like thoreau and just live in the woods and call yourself a philosopher.
>>
Hedda Gallybire - Fri, 05 Jun 2015 19:41:31 EST ID:o5ZKVi92 No.201200 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201179
The best way to kick ass of academia is not to play by their rules and become successful in the field regardless, sort of like Nietzsche and Ayn Rand did.

Or better, prove that magic is real, or paranormal abilities, or something that will ruin their pre-created, logical worldview.


Any personality-disordered individuals or psych majors care to throw in their two cents? by Whitey Blackbury - Wed, 27 May 2015 18:52:10 EST ID:Uq5d8i57 No.201003 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1432767130372.jpg -(55621 B, 715x654) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 55621
Seems an appropriate board to place this.

I'm not sure where to begin exactly. As an early adolescent, I was dead-set on staying away from drugs and protecting my mind. I prided myself on my sobriety. I even refused anti-depressants, going as far as to proclaim such haughty things as "I'd rather kill myself than take prozac and screw up my head". All of that changed when I began to heavily isolate myself in the latter half of high school, eventually falling into a deep depression and seeking out weed for the ever-novel oxymoronic mind numbing-stimulating effects it had on me. It made being alone okay. It allowed me to explore my thoughts, and revel in hedonistic satisfaction, night after night.

However, I was extremely susceptible to paranoia, and I had quite a few negative experiences with weed, including heavy feelings of depersonalization and moderate derealization. I started to have this bizarre and frustratingly persistent feeling that I didn't know who I was-- rather, I *never* knew who I was. I spent hours laying around, ruminating, totally absorbed in paranoia-fueled introspection. This feeling followed me everywhere, even while I was sober. There was a crack in my mental armor. I started unraveling, and I began to have extreme anxieties that infected every aspect of my life.

This was perhaps the beginning of, or the catalyst to a subsequent pattern of impulsive and self-destructive behaviors. I picked up a nasty cigarette habit, started screwing around with pills and booze, had quite a bit of risky sex, and dropped out of high school, all the while continuing to helplessly indulge in as much as 1-3 grams of weed per day, every day. I finally went to the doctor, and I couldn't snatch up that prozac prescription fast enough. I was having a crisis. I wanted to feel *different* in any way that I possibly could. I manipulated the hell out of that first appointment. I withheld all sorts of information and perhaps even exaggerated my anxiety symptoms a bit to ensure I got *something*.

A few months into a 20mg/daily fluoxetine schedule, with my weed habits at an all-time height (my doctor completely unaware) and my social isolation heavily advanced (I withdrew from all social media sites, stopped interacting with family and friends all together, shut myself away), I began to have awful dysphoric episodes. It would usually begin with a sexual encounter, or the anticipation of a sexual encounter. First, swelling feelings of nervousness, then I would start vomiting. This was accompanied by an intense feeling of fear, which I can only describe as very primal and abstract. I usually resorted to sobbing. These episodes could last between 10-30 hours, and I would attempt to sleep them off. I couldn't bear to be awake, as the vomiting would not stop so long as my thoughts were racing. These episodes became a weekly event, and I stopped caring enough to take my medication anymore.

My mental state improved slightly with the SSRIs out of my system. My weed habits eventually reached an all-time low as well. This didn't last long, however. A few months later, I fell into another crisis, and I reached a new low. I started to aggressively analyze my dysfunctional self, becoming increasingly obsessed, as I was convinced that there was something fundamentally wrong with me. Eventually I had another 'dysphoric episode' (not prompted by sex, the first episode since coming off prozac) with horrible feelings of fear and helplessness.

In my efforts to figure out what the fuck was happening to me, I started to examine my past. I have very foggy and fragmented memories with alarmingly large lapses up until about age 13-14, after which I can retain a relatively coherent timeline, although my recall is still quite problematic. I do not have the best memory in general (go figure, considering all the weed). With what little I do remember from my childhood, I can only describe it as traumatic. My mother was an irresponsible alcoholic, my father was an emotionally abusive, manipulative, and overtly suicidally-depressed narcissist. They divorced after my siblings moved out when I was 6-8, and after being juggled between the two of them for awhile, I ended up living with my father. Any memories I have between age 5-10 are fragmented and foggy at best.

I remember being quite a sexually-fixated and frustrated as a child. There was a recurring pattern of sexual "acting out", which included re-enacting adult-like sexual behaviors with my male peers as early as age 5 (I am male too). There was a manipulative and disturbingly methodical strategy by which I created situations that spawned sexual topics or activities. This happened on numerous occasions with half a dozen individuals my age until I was 12, when I was caught mid-act by my father. He never mentioned it again, but I was absolutely absorbed with debilitating shame. Up until that point, I had been incredibly secretive about my affairs, and I had always dreaded the idea of being found out.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Archie Sacklesit - Wed, 27 May 2015 20:28:00 EST ID:Uq5d8i57 No.201007 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201006

The way I understand it, Bipolar and BPD are very similar, but BPD's emotional dysregulation is characterized by more rapid, reactive manic-depressive cycles and rejection sensitivity, as opposed to more prolonged states without any clear causal factors. My emotions are largely dictated by the energy and attitudes of the people around me, and instability usually comes when I catch a hint of rejection in another person's facial expressions, word choice, or intonation. My response is usually to feel extremely hurt and ashamed, and to withdraw from that relationship. Anger/rage is not something I experience, however.
>>
Barnaby Brunkinbork - Thu, 28 May 2015 02:37:33 EST ID:0nqeD2Qf No.201010 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1432795053276.jpg -(482944 B, 497x735) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 482944
>201007
What you're describing also has impressions of Avoidant behavior. I don't believe in 'personality disorders' as being what they appear to be, but I do find the criteria are useful for describing general behavior.

I am a person who can relate to the Avoidant personality disorder, so I also understand how it is to live a life where you are never quite at peace, or balanced, or totally 'over' your issues.

Some things Avoidants seem to have in common could be, like, a preoccupation with the past. Long hurtful grudges against people who have wounded you in the past, who may not even be aware of it. Hazy memories of general life, but powerful memories of shame, ridicule, that kind of stuff. A lot of Avoidants feel like they are their own inner child, and they wear a suit around to engage with society. They are only themselves while alone and are afraid of behaving like themselves in front of others.

Anyway, at the end of the diagnosis, what matters is getting you to change your fucked up patterns so you can be free. So when your therapist is saying 'Get out of your head', she is trying to treat you. She wants to treat you personally, not a disorder. She is probably a good therapist for recognizing that the DSM is not to be taken so seriously and literally, and that people are complicated as fuck.
>>
Fellow 4chaner - Thu, 28 May 2015 14:25:56 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.201018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1432837556025.jpg -(2449060 B, 1464x1800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2449060
Wow. Entire paragraphs of your self description I can relate to word for word. I think a bunch of us can. I also had abusive and neglectful parents. (forgive them, for they know not what they do) I also had that young ambition to "never poison my mind" and later abused many harmful drugs, first as experiment, then the experiments went out of control. Ive never really held a job for a good while, and ive spent a good part of my life resenting and blaming others. I live in Texas, which as you may or may not know, is an intellectual wasteland.(front row center for the devolution of mankind) Im 25, and havent really accomplished much, as far as 25 year olds go. Ive been dependant on my parents for all my life, and theyve been great to me and ive been a fuckin asshole to them, especially lately, because my dog was stolen and im under a lot of pressure to get a high paying call center job. I live in a part of town that is slowly turning into a "sacrifice zone"
and there are churches everywhere around here.

Enough of that. Solutions time. Look dude, youre sharp, i can tell. One thing ive learned is that if youre able to identify your problems, then you sure as hell can come up with your solutions. MY problem? Im a lazy fuck. i know how to fix that.
The best advice i can give you is to STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM PILLS. I went to College for Pharmacy for a while, shits evil, man. ESPECIALLY Anitpsychotics, its the fuckin reason Robin Williams killed himself. They fuck up your brane, please trust me! Just stick to weed but remember, moderation. Like my (best?) friend tells me, "Marijuanas a luxury" Get all your ducks in a row, and when you light up, youll REALLy enjoy it, cause you KNOW you got your shit together.

Another suggestion: when you start to feel lonely, like i do, check this site out:
collectiveevolution.com The worlds not fucked, dont let people tell you that it is. Were on the brink of trancendence and we need intelligent people like you in this world. Channel that powerful mind of yours for good. Maybe your like me and just need to push your body really far and sweat all the toxins out. Also, check out the documentary " I am" its on youtube, about the direc…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
George Drubberpork - Sat, 30 May 2015 20:11:52 EST ID:u9wHwJBD No.201048 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>201003

As a caveat, I am neither a psych major, nor do I have a disorder on this particular spectrum (Schizophreniform is more my speed). I do have a very good friend with a BPD diagnosis though, and we've spent a lot of time talking through the way she thinks and the problems she encounters. A lot of what you've written is recognizable to me for that reason. With that note, my advice:

Professional help can be great, but is very hit or miss. My experiences with large-scale institutions are sub-par. I think the bigger these organisations get, the more they're run like a business: little room for a personal approach, stuck to mandatory procedures. That said, group therapy apparently has a great track record for BPD and bipolar, and that's hard to do small-scale. I only have experience in one country though, so your mileage may vary on this point.

The next part is assuming you have a professional therapist. Make sure they're qualified. Experience and education are both good indicators. Generally, try to cooperate as much as you can in therapy. Give it an honest shot. It's obvious, but I know that trust can be a serious issue sometimes. Put your faith in your therapist as much as you can. They won't judge and have a code about privacy. If you have no rapport whatsoever, find someone else. Be honest about why you' don't want them.

If you've honestly tried one form of therapy for a while but it has no payoff, discuss it with your therapist and possibly switch it up. Psychology is not an exact science; the evidence based treatments are all statistical crapshoots and there are always outliers.

As far as drugs are concerned, I'd leave that to psychiatrists. If they are convinced it will help, it's worth a shot, but if you have adverse or no effects, don't hesitate to kick it. I strongly disagree with the absolute rejection of pharmaceuticals you often hear; I was on antipsychotics for a couple of months and I feel it definitely helped (weight-gain sucked though).

Finally, - very important - try to make friends who can accept you in all your slight fucked-upness and who you can speak truthfully with.

In summary: different things work for different people, experiment and figure out what works. This doesn't have to be a "careless shot in the dark" - this is why there are professional therapists.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Jarvis Dullerbury - Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:46:42 EST ID:DYjBi8Lh No.201094 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I can relate, boy can I relate.

Especially with memory and timeline keeping - but it went different with me. See, I indulged with learning to escape from my self-destructive impulses and habits, and taught myself the palace of memory/method of loci technique, which, when brought to the extreme (as I am prone to doing), caused me to have an *abnormally* good memory, so long as I can keep myself interested. This has been noted by people around me, even - considering I can read a book once and recall its plot, characters, events in chronological order after 5 years, or can readily recall the description of car parts my friend read aloud when we were at the junkyard searching for spares 2 years ago. So long as something piques my interest, I commit it to my memory. That said, if I don't pay attention, it doesn't work nearly as well.

Still... this has helped me deal with a lot of problems with keeping track of stressful conversations or arguments or things like that. My memory acts up when I'm angry or stressed out, to the point of feeling like a blackout. My memory training... amended it a bit.

Oh, and abusive parents. My dad is a wanted criminal on the run, my mother is pretty much borderline. My family is traditional in general, so any sort of criticizing the mother was taken as a misbehaviur (even if these were legitimate criticisms, such as "she keeps stealing my private things and invading my privacy, then lying about it" or "she keeps waking me up in the middle of the night out of spite"), which led them to use my mental problems against me - every time I tried to voice my dissent to mistretment, I heard things like "X is acting up, he hasn't taken his medication in the morning".

Oh, and then the identity. Or, lack thereof. I always felt... empty. Not in a psychopath kiind of way - I'm empathetic, and I do have few but very close friends. No, it was like I never knew who I was. I never felt attached to my appearance, my name, always wondered what it means to be me. I sometimes asked my friends what do they think means to be me, which utterly confused them without fail. They're good people, but I can't expect them to understand everything…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


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